1986 PLP 945 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus REHMAT ULLAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 945 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus REHMAT ULLAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 945 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 945 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 945 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus REHMAT ULLAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.
- Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 13-6-1983 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in Writ Petition No. 2395/83).
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (3) (e)(ii)(a)--Ejectment of tenant from shop--Landlord requiring premises for use of his son--Ejectment application dismissed by Rent Controller but accepted in appeal and order upheld by High Court--Order of District Judge being correct and proper, Supreme Court declined to interfere--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This is a tenant's petition.. The petitioner is a tenant in a shop belonging to respondent` No.l. The said respondent sought the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the shop in question was required, bona fide, for the use of his son. Whereas the learned Rent Controller negatived this plea. The learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, accepted it and ordered the ejectment of petitioner. The High Court upheld the order of the Additional District Judge. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. We are of the opinion that the order of the learned Additional District Judge is correct and proper and no case for interference with his order is made out. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed.