1990 PLP 1003 (SCMR)
Hafiz NAEEM BUTT and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1003 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | Hafiz NAEEM BUTT and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1003 (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 1990 PLP 1003 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1003 (SCMR) (Hafiz NAEEM BUTT and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Nasim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989.
- Mr. Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner all along laid great stress on the fact that a big hall is available to the landlady where she can place her ten sewing machines and thus there is no legal, legitimate and bona fide need of the landlady regarding the property in dispute for her personal use.
- This matter was thoroughly examined by the Courts below. For the satisfaction of the learned Advocate, we have also looked into the relevant evidence but we don't think this cuts much ice because there is evidence on record that the property is genuinely required for the personal need of the landlady.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated 8‑2‑1989 in W.P. 696/89). ‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑ Leave to appeal‑‑‑Courts below after thoroughly examining evidence on record, concurrently, found that property in dispute was genuinely required for personal need of landlord as claimed by him‑‑‑In absence of any legal error in findings of Courts below, orders concurrently passed by Court below, could not be interfered with‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Rent Controller, Lahore, by order dated 22‑7‑1986 ordered ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that the property was required for the personal use of respondent No.1‑landlady. Appeal against that order failed by order of the Additional District Judge, dated 15‑12‑1988. Constitution petition filed by the petitioners met with the same fate. Now they are before us. Mr. Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner all along laid great stress on the fact that a big hall is available to the landlady where she can place her ten sewing machines and thus there is no legal, legitimate and bona fide need of the landlady regarding the property in dispute for her personal use. This matter was thoroughly examined by the Courts below. For the satisfaction of the learned Advocate, we have also looked into the relevant evidence but we don't think this cuts much ice because there is evidence on record that the property is genuinely required for the personal need of the landlady. So in the absence of any legal error we cannot do much except to hereby dismiss this petition. H.B.T./N‑212/S Petition dismissed.