1989 PLP 1301 (SCMR)
ALI BIN ABDUL QADIR Petitioner Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1301 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALI BIN ABDUL QADIR Petitioner Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1301 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1301 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1301 (SCMR) (ALI BIN ABDUL QADIR Petitioner Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Munawar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore,dated 2 October, 1988 in Writ Petition No.5267 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Landlord and tenant‑ Eviction of tenant for default in payment of rent‑‑Eviction order upheld until High Court‑‑Contention that power of attorney to start proceedings against the tenant was not legally issued, as no attorney was authorized to file eviction application in the absence of a resolution passed by the Directors of the landlord Bank and that the power of attorney produced before the Rent Controller was neither formally proved nor the same could be lawfully received in evidence‑‑Such contention had been raised before High Court and its finding was that said power of attorney had been received in evidence by the Rent Controller without any objection on the part of tenant and therefore, he could not be permitted to contend that same was not formally proved‑‑Concurrent finding of fact was that petitioner was proved to be a defaulter in payment of rent‑‑No interference was thus called for m the matter‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J:‑‑This petition for leave, to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2 October 1988 whereby writ of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is a tenant of Room No.13 forming part of Habib Bank Building at Lake Road; Lahore belonging to the respondent at ‑a: monthly rent of Rs.40. The respondent as landlord filed an eviction application before the Rent. Controller Lahore seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of default m payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The application was resisted by the petitioner. The evidence was led by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner had paid rent till 1979 but thereafter he failed to pay the. rent until the filing of the application of eviction in 1981. After hearing both the sides and recording evidence the ‑finding of the Rent Controller was that since the petitioner had failed to deposit the rent from January, 11980 onwards he was proved to be a defaulter and on that basis his eviction was ordered with a direction that he should hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months. The appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid ejectment order was dismissed. There after his writ petition was dismissed as stated above by the Lahore High Court. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the power of attorney to start proceedings against the petitioner was not legally issued as note attorney was authorised to file eviction application in the absence of a resolution passed by the Directors of the respondent‑:bank and that in the present case the power of attorney produced before the. Rent. Controller was neither formally proved nor the same could be lawfully received in evidence: As observed by the High Court this argument had been advanced before it and that the finding is that the said power of attorney had been received in evidence. by the Rent Controller without any objection on :the part of. The petitioner. Therefore he could not be permitted to contend that it was not formally proved. We have gone through the impugned judgment. The concurrent finding of fact is that, the, petitioner was proved to be a defaulter in payment of rent. In that view of the matter no interference is called for. This petition is therefore, dismissed. A.A./A-457/S Petition dismissed.