1991 PLP 1333 (SCMR)
TURNER SMITH & CO. LTD: — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1333 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah |
| Parties | TURNER SMITH & CO. LTD: — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1333 (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 1991 PLP 1333 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1333 (SCMR) (TURNER SMITH & CO. LTD: — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988.
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17-6-1988 in Writ Petition No.2666 of 1986).
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Ejectment of tenant-- Where ejectment of tenant was sought on ground of personal requirement of landlord and property in question had been found to be more suitable for landlord's needs, tenant, held, was hardly in any better position than landlord to influence, landlord's judgment regarding suitability of property
Evidence on record showing that property in dispute admittedly had not been rented out to tenant as industrial concern, contention of tenant that premises having been rented out as an industrial concern he could not have been evicted through proceedings under Rent Restriction Law, was repelled.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑ Where ejectment of tenant was sought on ground of personal requirement of landlord and property in question had been found to be more suitable for landlord's needs, tenant, held, was hardly in any better position than landlord to influence, landlord's judgment regarding suitability of property‑‑‑Evidence on record showing that property in dispute admittedly had not been rented out to tenant as industrial concern, contention of tenant that premises having been rented out as an industrial concern he could not have been evicted through proceedings under Rent Restriction Law, was repelled. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑A tenant having been ordered to be ejected on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord under the Rent Restriction law, has brought under challenge the dismissal by the High Court, of his Writ Petition. Learned counsel raised two‑fold contentions; (1) that the respondent landlord had failed to establish his bona fide personal requirement and (2) that the premises in question having been rented out as an industrial concern, .the petitioner could not have been evicted through proceedings under the Rent Restriction law. Regarding the first contention, the argument of the learned counsel is that the property in dispute being an open land with the industrial structure thereon it is not as suitable for the respondents' need as his other land which is lying vacant near the property in dispute. It has not impressed us. If the property in question has been found to be more suitable for the landlord's needs, the petitioner/tenant is hardly in any better position than the landlord to influence the tatter's judgment regarding suitability of the site. His suggestion, therefore, cannot be given effect at this stage. Regarding the character of the property in dispute, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that an industrial concern would fall outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the present law as contended by the learned counsel, the perusal of the relevant record shows that the property in dispute was not rented out to the petitioner as an industrial concern. That being so, leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./T‑46/S Leave refused.