1989SCMR480 (PLP)
ABDUL KHALIQ — Petitioner Versus NASIR JAWAID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR480 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ---S.22--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art: 85(3)--Petitioner though claiming to be tenant, was not impleaded as such and ejectment order was passed against someone else; petitioner went in appeal but without treating him to be a tenant he was asked to vacate premises precluding him thereby from raising any objection under S.22 of Ordinance, 1979--Leave to appear granted inter alia to consider question that petitioner's appeal was dismissed as time-barred when decision of Supreme Court reported in Fa7al Karim v. Ghulam Jilani 1975 SCMR 452 could be availed of by him in matter of limitation.--Limitation. |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALIQ — Petitioner Versus NASIR JAWAID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR480 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR480 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S.22--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art: 85(3)--Petitioner though claiming to be tenant, was not impleaded as such and ejectment order was passed against someone else; petitioner went in appeal but without treating him to be a tenant he was asked to vacate premises precluding him thereby from raising any objection under S.22 of Ordinance, 1979--Leave to appear granted inter alia to consider question that petitioner's appeal was dismissed as time-barred when decision of Supreme Court reported in Fa7al Karim v. Ghulam Jilani 1975 SCMR 452 could be availed of by him in matter of limitation.--Limitation. bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR480 (PLP) (ABDUL KHALIQ — Petitioner Versus NASIR JAWAID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st September, 1988.
- Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 17-1-1988 passed in First Rent Appeal No.688 of 1984).
S.22--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art:] 85(3)--Petitioner though claiming to be tenant, was not impleaded as such and ejectment order was passed against someone else; petitioner went in appeal but without treating him to be a tenant he was asked to vacate premises precluding him thereby from raising any objection under S.22 of Ordinance, 1979--Leave to appear granted inter alia to consider question that petitioner's appeal was dismissed as time-barred when decision of Supreme Court reported in Fa7al Karim v. Ghulam Jilani 1975 SCMR 452 could be availed of by him in matter of limitation.--[Limitation]. Fazal Karim v. Ghularn Jilani and others 1975 S C M R 452 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi dated 17‑1‑1988 whereby while dismissing his appeal as incompetent being time‑barred, the learned Judge allowed him six months for vacating the premises. We had issued notice to the respondents as there was a decision of this Court in Fazal Karim v. Ghulam Jilani and others (1975 S C M R 452) which could be availed of by the petitioner in the matter of limitation. On merits, we feel that though the petitioner claimed to be tenant, he was not impleaded as a tenant nor proceeded against before the Rent Controller and the ejectment order was passed against someone else. He had come up in appeal against that order but without treating him to be a tenant he has been asked to vacate the premises precluding him thereby from raising any objection such as he could raise under section 22 of the Sind Rent Restriction Ordinance. Special efforts were made to get the respondents served. The petitioner had personally taken the responsibility of getting them served. There are notices on record showing that service has taken place but we are not at the moment in a position to take it for certain and therefore of converting the petition into appeal and disposing it of. Therefore, we grant leave to appeal. Security shall be Rs.2,51N). Status quo with regard to possession subject to notice. MAX,/A‑374/5 Leave granted.