1990 PLP 610 (SCMR)
A.D.MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 610 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | A.D.MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED 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 610 (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 610 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 610 (SCMR) (A.D.MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14‑11‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in F.A.O. No.50 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Parties entering into compromise for settling their long‑standing dispute amicably‑‑ ‑Tenant was permitted to continue in possession of shop till specified date provided he continued to pay monthly rent, thereafter, he was to vacate the shop without recourse to execution proceedings in accordance with the undertaking given by him‑‑‑Petition was disposed of in terms of compromise.
Judgment & Decree
Ch.Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. The parties have entered into a compromise with a view to settling their long‑standing dispute amicably. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner, after consulting his client, stated that in case the petitioner is allowed to remain in occupation of the shop upto 30‑5‑1990 he shall have no objection to vacating the shop voluntarily. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent stated that the respondent agreed to the petitioner continuing in possession of the shop provided he continued to pay the monthly rent and vacated the shop voluntarily on the said date without the respondent being obliged to have recourse to execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the parties, as already stated, after consulting their clients again agree to abide by these terms. The result is that the petitioner is permitted to continue in possession of the shop till 30‑5‑1990; thereafter he shall vacate the shop without recourse to execution proceedings, in accordance with the undertaking given before us. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.A./A‑552/S Order accordingly