1988 PLP 1341 (SCMR)
ABDUL WAHEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZAFAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1341 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZAFAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1341 (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 1988 PLP 1341 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1341 (SCMR) (ABDUL WAHEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZAFAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 1-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No.3583/85).
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Ejectment of tenant--Controversy before High Court was one of fact only which had been resolved against the petitioner--Petitioner tenant had already been evicted--Petitioner's claim for specific performance through a regular suit was still pending--Controversy being one of fact and already stood resolved by Courts below, and no justification having been found for interference by Supreme Court, petition was dismissed with the observation that dismissal of petition would not prejudice the case of petitioner in the pending suit for specific performance.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a tenant's petition in a rent restriction matter calling in question his ejectment. His Writ Petition has been dismissed. Now he seeks leave to appeal. The controversy before the High Court was one of fact only, which has been resolved against the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel admits that the petitioner has already been evicted. In the circumstances of this case, the controversy being one of fact already stands resolved by the learned Courts below we, therefore, do not find any justification for interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's claim for specific performance through a regular suit which is still pending, would be prejudice by the dismissal of this petition. It is observed that if the same is still pending in some Court, it shall not be prejudiced by this Order.
3. With the afore‑going observations, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./A‑234/S Petition dismissed.