1991 PLP 1871 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus ALEEM-UD-DIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1871 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus ALEEM-UD-DIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1871 (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 1991 PLP 1871 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1871 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus ALEEM-UD-DIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 1990.
- S. M. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 9-10-1989 of the Lahore High Court passed in F.A.O. No.230 of 1988). --S. 13(2)(i)(ii)(a) & (3)(i)(ii)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-- Ejectment on grounds of default subletting and personal bona fide need
High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction re-appraised entire evidence on record and came to adverse findings against petitioner/tenant on all three grounds of eviction
No misreading of evidence or any other illegality was pointed out
No justification thus existed for grant of leave to appeal
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal for setting aside the appellate order of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑10‑1989 whereby he has been ordered to be ejected from his tenancy.
2. Respondent had filed an application against the petitioner for his ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent, his own bona fide personal need and petitioner having sublet the premises. It was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment vide order dated 27‑11‑1988. He filed an appeal bearing No.F.A.O. NG, 230 of 1988. The learned Single Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, found in favour of the respondent on all the three grounds and directed petitioner's ejectment vide order dated 9‑10‑1989.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition submitted that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000 with the respondent as security, from which the amount of rent could be deducted, and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner being a defaulter in payment of the rent.
4. The learned appellate High Court has in this behalf observed that "in the reply to the‑ ejectment petition filed by the respondent, no plea regarding security lying with the appellant was raised nor did the respondent while appearing as his own witness depose anything on this aspect of the matter". Plea not taken in reply nor deposed to can hardly be urged in these proceedings. Entire evidence on record was reappraised by the learned Judge of the High Court in his appellate jurisdiction and he came to adverse findings against the petitioner on all the three issues. No misreading of evidence or any other illegality is pointed out. Therefore, there is no justification for grant of leave to appeal. Hence, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1248/S Petition dismissed.