1988 PLP 1283(2) (SCMR)
NASIM KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1283(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NASIM KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1283(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1283(2) (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 1283(2) (SCMR) (NASIM KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 19$8.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑12‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.5395 of 1984). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment‑ Findings of fact by Courts below that petitioner was not landlord of suit premises‑‑High Court observing that petitioner should approach Civil Court‑‑Observation of High Court being unexceptionable, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused with observation that dismissal of the petition shall not prejudice civil suit if filed by petitioner in pursuance of observations of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is by a landlord, who challenged certain orders in the High Court in its Writ Jurisdiction, but without any success. He has now sought leave to appeal.
2. It a learned counsel frankly admitted that the findings of fact rendered by the Courts below go against the petitioner and the petitioner has not been found to be landlord of the premises. He has, however, sought an observation that the suit filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the observation of the High Court shall not be prejudiced by the dismissal of this petition. He also half heartedly argued that the High Court, instead of observing that tae petitioner should approach the civil Court, should have directed the respondent No.3 to do the same.
3. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The observation of the High Court is unexceptionable. It is, however, observed that the dismissal of this petition shall not prejudice the civil suit if filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the observations of the High Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore refused and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M.I./N‑74/S Petition dismissed.