1993 PLP 2323 (SCMR)
Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Sub.‑Mjor (Retd.) Mir BADAR DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2323 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Sub.‑Mjor (Retd.) Mir BADAR DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2323 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2323 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2323 (SCMR) (Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Sub.‑Mjor (Retd.) Mir BADAR DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 4th August, 1992 in W.P. 588/1992). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑‑Order of ejectment of tenant was maintained by all the Courts up to the High Court‑‑‑Landlord's title to property in question, was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court and the High Court in earlier round of litigation‑‑ Tenant was refused leave to appeal in earlier litigation‑‑‑Tenant's only claim in present round of litigation was that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties‑‑‑Tenant had admittedly obtained premises in question, on lease from the landlord, he was, thus, estopped to challenge title of landlord‑‑‑Tenant did not claim title to the premises in dispute, therefore, he was not an aggrieved person and had no right to challege title of the landlord‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Respondent in Person (absent)
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.
‑The respondents brought an application for ejectment of the petitioners from the premises in dispute. The ejectment order was passed against the petitioners. The order of eviction was maintained by the Appellate Court. The petitioners challenged these orders in a Constitution Petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the premises in dispute is an evacuee property and therefore the relationship of the landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. It is also an admitted feature of the case that the petitioner had obtained on lease the premises in question from the respondent. Therefore the petitioner is estopped to challenge the title of his landlord. The learned counsel next contended that by the impugned judgment of the High Court the Settlement Authorities are debarred to initiate the proceedings regarding the character of the property. The petitioner is nobody to urge on behalf of a third party. The learned counsel has admitted that in execution of the decree the possession has since been delivered to the respondent landlord. He next contended that the claim of the respondent was that he inherited property from his sister who had purchased the plot and constructed house over it. The respondent filed suit for declaration that he was the only surviving heir of his sister Dr. Zenab Jamal. The suit was decreed. The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the property was evacuee property. The learned trial Judge set aside the ex parte decree but the learned District Judge set side the judgment of the trial Court. The petitioners' petition was dismissed by the High Court. The learned counsel has admitted that the petition for leave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner does not claim title to the premises in dispute therefore he is not an aggrieved person. He has no right to challenge the title of his landlord. There is, therefore, no force in this petition and leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑1810. Leave refused.