1970 PLP 326 (SCMR)
Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 326 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 326 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 326 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 326 (SCMR) (Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raza Hussain Shamsi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 26th January 1970.
- Raza Hussain Shamsi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th November 1969, in Writ Petition No. 374 of 1969). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Refused when the allegation on which leave to appeal was sought was not found to be correct.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The learned counsel concedes that the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to determine whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, but contends that the learned Judges in the High Court have in accepting the writ petition moved by the respondent against the order of the Rent Controller . recorded a positive finding that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent though the issue had yet to be determined by the Rent Controller. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Judges were seized with the issue whether the proceedings in the application for the ejectment of the petitioner under section 13.of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1958, were lawfully stayed sine die pending the decision of the civil suit filed by the petitioner disputing the validity of the sale deed under which the respondent claimed to have purchased the rights of the petitioner's lesser. The observations made by the learned Judges are, however, confined to the legality of the stay order by the Rent Controller and do not dispose of finally the issue whether the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent or not. This question has yet to be decided by the Rent Controller in the light of the evidence brought before him by the parties. The petitioner has no other quarrel with the order of the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed with the observations made above. Leave Refuse.