1998 PLP 455 (SCMR)
REHMATULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL BAQI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 455 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Muhammad Munir Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | REHMATULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL BAQI and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 455 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 455 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Muhammad Munir Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 455 (SCMR) (REHMATULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL BAQI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th May, 1995.
- Mian Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑10‑1994 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in F.A.O. No.6/93). ‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Application for ejectment of tenant‑‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant denied by respondent (alleged tenant)‑‑‑Rent Controller on basis of evidence on record decided issue about existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in affirmative and ordered eviction of respondent‑‑‑High Court in appeal took different view and set aside finding of Rent Controller‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention of petitioner that there was statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, inasmuch as, premises in litigation being in possession of respondents were transferred to petitioner under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958; and that petitioner had no need to invoke jurisdiction of Civil Court for seeking declaration about his title, when he had invoked provisions contained in S.17, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
Judgment & Decree
MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court in First Appeal from Order No.6 of 1993. Petitioner Rehmatullah filed application under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 for eviction of respondent, Fazal Baqi and Hashim Khan from the premises in litigation mentioned in the application. Eviction of the respondents was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement. Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the respondents in this written statement. The learned Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment after recording evidence of the parties decided the issue about existence of relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties in the affirmative and ordered eviction of the respondents without framing any issue on merits. In appeal the High Court did not agree with view of the Rent Controller about existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The High Court took view that the material brought on record by the respondent had made claim of the petitioner doubtful and in such a situation the petitioner should seek remedy in a Civil Court. Hence this petition. Mian Younis Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that here was statutory relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties, inasmuch as the premises in litigation being in possession of the respondents were transferred to the petitioner under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It was also argued that it was not necessary for the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of the Civil Court for seeking declaration about his title, when he had invoked the provisions contained in section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. Mr. M. Aman Khan, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and argued that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner require determination. Consequently, leave is granted to determine the aforesaid points. A.A./R.274/S Leave granted.