1985 PLP 167 (SCMR)
PERCY JOSEPH — Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 167 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi JJ |
| Parties | PERCY JOSEPH — Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 167 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 167 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 167 (SCMR) (PERCY JOSEPH — Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-4-1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 3865 of 1981). --Art. 185(3)
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13--Contentions of petitioner were dealt with at some length by High Court before rejecting same--Supreme Court being satisfied that no case having been made out for issue of writ before High Court, dismissed petition for leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1984. ORDER . M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- This petition arises from an ejectment proceeding which resulted in the passing of ex parte order of ejectment of the petition by the Rent Controller on 23-6-1980. He filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order which failed on 15-9-1980. There upon, he filed an appeal on 16-9-1980 but the same was dismissed on 15-7-1981 on the ground of limitation alone though the appellate Court observed that the petitioner should have also appealed from the refusal to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner then challenged the order of his ejectment through a writ petition but the same, too, was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 10-4-1984.
2. It is argued, firstly, that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and as such the Controller, by an erroneous finding on that jurisdictional fact could not assume jurisdiction and, secondly, that the appeal could not be held to be time-barred because certified copy of the Controller's order, dated 23-6-1980, for which an application had been made on 23-6-1980, had not been furnished. Both the contentions, we find, had been raised before the High Court and dealt with at some length before rejecting the same. We are satisfied that no case had been made out for issue of a writ by the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.