1988 PLP 1656 (SCMR)
SHAFIQUE AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, CIVIL JUDGE, and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1656 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SHAFIQUE AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, CIVIL JUDGE, and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1656 (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 1988 PLP 1656 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1656 (SCMR) (SHAFIQUE AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, CIVIL JUDGE, and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh.Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1988.
- Kh.Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Ejectment--Legal representative of deceased tenant--Plea that on the death of original tenant all his heirs had jointly inherited the tenancy and as such ejectment proceedings taken against one of them were improper, not entertained--No other heir was in occupation of property in dispute, nor had applied for being impleaded before Rent Controller or ever tendered any rent to contesting respondents--Petition being without merit, dismissed. Respondent No.3 in person (in Petition No.1130 of 1983).
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal. In both the petitions the contesting parties as well as the property in dispute is the same.
2. The dispute relates to a part of the property situate in Shahdara Town, Lahore. Both parties sought transfer of the property before the Settlement authorities and the litigation came right up to this Court. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the contesting respondents, namely, Muhammad Sharif, turned out to be successful and the transfer documents were issued in his name.
3. The contesting respondents filed an application for the ejectment of Mahmood Ahmad, one of the legal representatives of Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad. On their part, the petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration that Muhammad Sharif had obtained the transfer of property by committing fraud. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and its decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The contesting respond‑tints were successful in obtaining an order of eviction against Mahmood Ahmad. The order of eviction was maintained by the Additional District Judge and the writ petition of the petitioners, challenging the order of eviction was dismissed.
4. Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1130 is directed against the order of eviction. C.P.S.L.A. No.119 ‑of 1984 arises out of the suit filed by the petitioners.
5. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioners had not addressed any argument in C.P.S.L.A. No.119. As regards the other petition, his case is that on the death of Hakim Mukhtarl Ahmad all his heirs had jointly inherited the tenancy and as such proceedings for eviction taken against Mahmood Ahmad alone, were) improper.
6. We find little merit in this contention. There is no evidence that except Mahmood Ahmad any of the petitioners was in occupation of the property in dispute. Apart from that, none of the petitioners except Mahmood Ahmad applied for being impleaded before the Rent Controller. It was also not their case that they had ever tendered any rent to the contesting respondents. In the circumstances, we did not find any merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed. M.I. /S‑168/S Petitions dismissed.