1990 PLP 542 (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed ABDUL AZIZ SHAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 542 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed ABDUL AZIZ SHAH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 542 (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 1990 PLP 542 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 542 (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed ABDUL AZIZ SHAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mchtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16‑5‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.2298 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXIII, R.1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), " Art.185(3)‑‑‑‑Tenant's eviction on ground of personal requirement of landlord‑‑‑Tenant's Constitutional petition against his eviction also dismissed‑‑‑Tenant relied upon provisions of OXXIII, R.1, C.P:C. and contended that principles underlying the provisions of C.P.C. could be applied to rent case on grounds of equity‑‑‑Held, cause of action in a cake of personal requirement, depending on circumstances of each case, could arise from time to time‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to rent cases, its equitable principles might be applied to advance justice, but not to penalise the landlord‑‑ Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Mehdi Khan Mchtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is tenant's petition for leave to appeal against his eviction on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent/landlord and against the dismissal of his writ petition in that behalf, by the High Court. The question now left to be resolved is simple. Learned counsel has contended that the landlord having earlier withdrawn an application for eviction based on the same ground could not have filed afresh application; because he had not sought permission to refile it. Reliance in this behalf has been places', on Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. He has also cited some judgments to show that the principles underlying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be applied to a rent case on grounds of equity. The cause of action in a case of personal requirement, depending on the circumstances of each case, can arise from time to time. Moreover, C.P.C., it is not denied, is not applicable to the rent cases. Its equitable principle might be applied to advance justice. Here learned counsel wants us to apply the same to penalise the respondent. The position is untenable. The cases cited by him are not relevant. There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused. AA./M‑929/S Leave refused.