1990 PLP 7 (SCMR)
Haji MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 7 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Sood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ 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 7 (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 7 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Sood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 7 (SCMR) (Haji MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abdul Aasim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Ikramul Haq Naseem, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29‑5‑1988 in W.P. No.2767 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Reconstruction‑‑‑Order of ejectment was upheld by the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑When tenant's application came up for consideration his plea was that he only wanted certain minor adjustments for the purpose of his shifting to other premises‑‑ Tenant's such request was granted by the Supreme Court‑‑‑Tenant, however, had not vacated the premises despite the fact that more than two months had passed‑‑‑Mere fact that tenant had not so far vacated the premises despite the clarification sought from Supreme Court would show that he might prolong the shifting whether for vacating the premises or for re‑locating the electric connection, so as to suit his own convenience‑‑‑Question of tenant's eviction having been affirmed and concluded, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending‑‑‑Leave to appeal was thus refused‑‑‑Landlord might take any action for gaining the possession as soon as possible‑‑‑Earlier order of Supreme Court would stand vacated in its entirety including that part which related to shifting/re‑location of electric connection.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by a tenant against his eviction, under .the Rent Restriction law, from a commercial property and the ultimate dismissal by the High Court of his writ petition, in this behalf. Learned counsel at the very outset stated that the petitioner would not resist the claim of respondent No.3 to reconstruct the property. He only wanted minor adjustments for this purpose of his shifting to other premises. Similar plea was raised before the Court on 8‑6‑1988 when the application for interim relief came up for consideration. The relevant part thereof is reproduced below:‑ "The stay asked for is not granted. However learned counsel states that the respondent No.3 should be restrained from placing any hurdle in the petitioner shifting the place for the electric connection at his own expense, so as to suit him during the period of reconstruction and till he reoccupies the reconstructed building in accordance with law. The request is reasonable. Order accordingly; subject to all just Today the position remains the same. The petitioner has not vacated the premises despite the fact that more than two months have passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has blamed the respondent No.3 whose learned counsel has seriously questioned the bona fides of the petitioner himself. The mere fact that the petitioner has not so far vacated the premises despite the clarification sought from this Court, would show that he might prolong the so‑called shifting whether for vacating the premises or for re‑locating the electric connection, so as to suit his own, convenience. Be that as it may, question of petitioner's eviction having been affirmed and concluded no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused, The respondent may take any action for gaining the possession as soon as possible. The order passed by this Court on 8‑6‑1988 stands vacated in its entirety including that part which related to shifting,/re‑location of electric connection. A.A./M‑931/S, Leave refused.