1977 PLP 305 (SCMR)
S. A. SAEED‑Appellant Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUFAQ AND OTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1977 PLP 305 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 185‑Compromise‑Appellant tenant undertaking to surrender vacant possession of premises to landlord and clear all arrears of rent within a fixed time and landlord agreeing to forego demand for enhanced rent over and above rent already fixed till time specified for delivery of possession, appeal disposed in terms of compromise‑Appeal however ordered to stand dismissed with costs in event of appellant's failure to comply with terms of compromise-Compromise. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Akram, JJ |
| Parties | S. A. SAEED‑Appellant Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUFAQ AND OTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 305 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 305 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 185‑Compromise‑Appellant tenant undertaking to surrender vacant possession of premises to landlord and clear all arrears of rent within a fixed time and landlord agreeing to forego demand for enhanced rent over and above rent already fixed till time specified for delivery of possession, appeal disposed in terms of compromise‑Appeal however ordered to stand dismissed with costs in event of appellant's failure to comply with terms of compromise-Compromise. bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Akram, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 305 (SCMR) (S. A. SAEED‑Appellant Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUFAQ AND OTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. A. Saeed, Advocate instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 11th May 14)76,
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑‑‑The appellant, Mr. S. A. Saeed. Advocate, is a tenant since 1961 of a portion of the property known as 44‑Masjid Shah Chiragh Lahore, which is presently under the management of the Auqaf Department, He was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12 per mensem for the premises. He had paid the rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 12 per mensem till the end of. May 1968 But, before it, on the 13th December 1967, he received a notice from respondent No. 3, Assistant Manager, Auqaf Properties. Sector No2 Lahore assessing the rent for the premises in his possession at As 230 per mensem with effect from 1st July, 1966. The appellant challenged the validity of this order by filing a writ petition against it under Article 98 of the late Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962. On the 21st September 1971, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Lahore disposed of the writ petition holding that the respondents were entitled to recover the reassessed rent at the enhanced rate but with effect from 1st June, 1968 only.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 21‑9‑1971 in Writ Petition No. 683 of 1968)
Art. 185‑Compromise‑Appellant tenant undertaking to surrender vacant possession of premises to landlord and clear all arrears of rent within a fixed time and landlord agreeing to forego demand for enhanced rent over and above rent already fixed till time specified for delivery of possession, appeal disposed in terms of compromise‑Appeal however ordered to stand dismissed with costs in event of appellant's failure to comply with terms of compromise-[Compromise].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑‑‑The appellant, Mr. S. A. Saeed. Advocate, is a tenant since 1961 of a portion of the property known as 44‑Masjid Shah Chiragh Lahore, which is presently under the management of the Auqaf Department, He was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12 per mensem for the premises. He had paid the rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 12 per mensem till the end of. May 1968 But, before it, on the 13th December 1967, he received a notice from respondent No. 3, Assistant Manager, Auqaf Properties. Sector No2 Lahore assessing the rent for the premises in his possession at As 230 per mensem with effect from 1st July, 1966. The appellant challenged the validity of this order by filing a writ petition against it under Article 98 of the late Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962. On the 21st September 1971, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Lahore disposed of the writ petition holding that the respondents were entitled to recover the reassessed rent at the enhanced rate but with effect from 1st June, 1968 only. The appellant then filed a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. On the 2nd December 1971, this Court allowed leave to appeal against the order. On the 11th May 1976, we heard the argu ments in the appeal and reserved our judgment. Afterwards, Mr. Hakim Sardar Khan for the respondents and the appellant appeared before us to state that the parties have compromised their dispute in his appeal as under:‑- (1) The appellant undertakes to surrender vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent No. 3, the Assistant Manager Auqaf Properties, Sector No. 2, Lahore within a period of six weeks. (2) The respondents have agreed to forego their demand for enhanced rent over and above Rs. 12 per mensem for the premises for the premises from 1st June 1968, up to the actual date of the surrender of the possession of the premises by the appellant to them. (3) The appellant under takes to clear all the outstanding arrears of rent for the period from 1‑6‑1968 up to the date of the surrender of the possession at the old rate of Rs. 12 per mensem to the respondent within six weeks. He shall be entitled to make adjustment for the rent, if any already paid or deposited for this period. This appeal is disposed of accordingly leaving parties to bear their own costs: But in the event of the failure of the appellant to comply with any of these terms, his appeal shall stand dismissed with costs. Order accordingly.