1989SCMR1763 (PLP)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus Mst. RASHIDA HAMID and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1763 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus Mst. RASHIDA HAMID and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1763 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR1763 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1763 (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus Mst. RASHIDA HAMID and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Tanseer Asghar, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑7‑1988 in W.P.No. 3595 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Landlord and tenant, relationship of‑‑Disputed portion of property was transferred to the respondent and petitioner's position was only that of a tenant‑‑Findings of High Court were unexceptionable justifying dismissal of petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner however, might if so advised, file a suit in the Court of general jurisdiction (after surrendering the possession to the respondent successful party) for declaration of ownership and possession.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is tenant's petition, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Writ Petition; which had arisen out of the order of his eviction under the Rent Restriction Law. The question now pressed before this Court is whether the relationship of the landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not. The property in question was admittedly transferred under the law relating to the settlement of displaced persons. The dispute is whether the portion in question stood transferred to the petitioner side or to the respondent side. On the basis of the evidence led before the learned Courts below. it has been found that the disputed portion was transferred to the respondent side and that the petitioner's position was only that of a tenant. Learned counsel has argued the matter at length taking us through various documents relating to transfer of the concerned properties which are on record. But, all the documents which are required to be examined, had not been placed on the record. The findings as they appear from the impugned judgments, do seem to be unexceptionable so as to justify the dismissal of this petition and refusal for leave to appeal by this Court. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we consider it fit and proper to observe that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit in the Court of general jurisdiction (after surrendering the possession to the respondent successful party) for declaration of ownership and possession. With these observations, leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./G‑203/S Petition dismissed.