1991 PLP 1497 (SCMR)
ASHFAQ AHMED — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHEERIN BAI MUHAMMAD ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1497 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ASHFAQ AHMED — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHEERIN BAI MUHAMMAD ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1497 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1497 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1497 (SCMR) (ASHFAQ AHMED — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHEERIN BAI MUHAMMAD ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja M. Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- MA. Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate -on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1989.
- Raja M. Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- MA. Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25-3-1989 of the Lahore High Court, FA.O. No. 52 of 1986).
Ss. 14 & 17(2)(vi)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-- Reconstruction of rented building
Construction of composite building-- Whether bar of S.14 attracted
Proposed reconstruction of building in dispute was not only for "residential" purpose, but was a composite building consisting of commercial and residential units
High Court, thus had rightly found that S. 14 of Act by itself was no bar to landlord's seeking evidence of tenant
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.
Leave to appeal has been sought in a Cantonment Rent Restriction matter by a tenant; against the acceptance by the High Court of respondent's (landlady) appeal. The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on ground of requirement of the building for reconstruction. It consists of multiple units. Learned counsel for the caveator has stated that the landlord has succeeded in regard to the two other units. And the impediment in reconstruction, is only of the unit involved in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner without refuting the above statement has contended that under section 14 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act a "commercial" building cannot be converted into "residential" one, without the requisite permission. And because no such permission was obtained by the landlady, therefore, the intended reconstruction of this commercial building being for "residential" purpose, the petitioner could not be evicted. The High Court has properly dealt with this point. We may add that strictly speaking the bar of section 14 would not be attracted because the proposed reconstruction of the building will not be only for "residential" purpose. It will be a composite building consisting of "Commercial and Residential" units. Be that as it may, we agree with the High Court that section 14 by itself is no bar to respondent's seeking eviction of the petitioner in this case. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. H.B.T./A-558/S Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a Cantonment Rent Restriction matter by a tenant; against the acceptance by the High Court of respondent's (landlady) appeal. The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on ground of requirement of the building for reconstruction. It consists of multiple units. Learned counsel for the caveator has stated that the landlord has succeeded in regard to the two other units. And the impediment in reconstruction, is only of the unit involved in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner without refuting the above statement has contended that under section 14 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act a "commercial" building cannot be converted into "residential" one, without the requisite permission. And because no such permission was obtained by the landlady, therefore, the intended reconstruction of this commercial building being for "residential" purpose, the petitioner could not be evicted. The High Court has properly dealt with this point. We may add that strictly speaking the bar of section 14 would not be attracted because the proposed reconstruction of the building will not be only for "residential" purpose. It will be a composite building consisting of "Commercial and Residential" units. Be that as it may, we agree with the High Court that section 14 by itself is no bar to respondent's seeking eviction of the petitioner in this case. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. H.B.T./A‑558/S Leave refused.