1986 PLP 829 (CLC)
ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHNIAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 829 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHNIAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 829 (CLC)?
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 1986 PLP 829 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 829 (CLC) (ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHNIAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafique Javed Butt for Petitioner.
- Mian lqbal Khalid for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 13(6)‑‑Order under S.13(6) passed without first determining questions of relationship of landlord and tenant and status of rented premises‑‑Legality‑‑No order under 13(6) of Ordinance, 1958, held, could be passed by Rent Controller without first determining questions of jurisdiction depending upon relationship of landlord and tenant and question whether subject‑matter of property was such to which provision of said Ordinance applied‑‑Failure of Rent Controller to advert to such questions‑‑Order passed by Rent Controller set aside and case remitted to be disposed of in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Rafique Javed Butt for Petitioner. Mian lqbal Khalid for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 24th January, 1984. There was a pre‑admission hearing ordered in this case. Mian Iqbal Khalid, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent landlord.
2. By the consent of parties, this petition is admitted to a regular hearing and is being disposed of today.
3. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no order under section 13(6) could be passed by the Rent Controller without first determining the question of jurisdiction which is dependent upon the finding of relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the subject‑matter of the property is such to which the provisions of Rent Restriction Ordinance apply. Mian Iqbal Khalid, learned counsel for the respondent‑landlord states that indeed there appears to be some omission in that respect and therefore fn order to save time and unnecessary protracted litigation, he consents to this writ petition being accepted and the case being remitted to the learned Rent Controller for proceeding with the case from the stage at which he was to determine the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and further a preliminary question whether the plot in dispute was rented out for commercial purpose.
4. I find that the legal position is correctly stated. This has not been adverted to by the Rent Controller. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the case is remitted to the Rent Controller who shall dispose of the matter finally in accordance with law within a period of three months from this order. In the circumstances, there should be no order as to costs. H. B. T. Order accordingly