1989 SCMR 2041 (PLP)
KANEEZ FATIMA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALIL AHMAD SHARAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 2041 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KANEEZ FATIMA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALIL AHMAD SHARAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 2041 (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 1989 SCMR 2041 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 2041 (PLP) (KANEEZ FATIMA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALIL AHMAD SHARAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner :v Sh. Masud Akhtar. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.‑
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18‑3‑1989 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 5371 of 1983). ‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑ Controversy before lower Courts being whether tenant was the owner of land under the building, while superstructure belonged to landlord, it was found that petitioner having been inducted as tenant was liable to pay the rent at least for the superstructure of the building, being tenant in law vis‑a‑vis the building‑‑No satisfactory ground was put forward by tenant's side to upset the finding of High Court‑‑As to alternative prayer of tenant, Supreme Court considered it a fit case to permit the tenant to seek declaration of title regarding the land under the building in question, by filing a suit in Civil Court‑‑Tenant, however, would not be entitled to regain the possession in contravention of the orders of the Rent Controller which had been affirmed by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner :v Sh. Masud Akhtar. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.‑ Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. ORDER. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant against the dismissal by the High Court, of her Writ Petition. It had arisen out orders of her eviction passed by a learned Rent Controller.
2. The controversy before the learned Courts below was whether, the petitioner who is stated to be the owner of the land under the building in dispute could be treated as tenant, vis‑a‑vis, the superstructure belonging to the respondent/landlord. It may be noted here that this assumption has been raised only in the context of the arguments relating to the ownership of the land, in case they are accepted. It has been found that the petitioner, on the finding that she was inducted as a tenant and was liable to pay the rent at least for the superstructure of the building, was a tenant in law, vis‑a‑vis, the "building".
3. After some arguments the learned counsel could not advance any satisfactory argument to upset the findings of the High Court. He in the alternative requested that the petitioner who has now been physically evicted in execution of the impugned orders may be allowed to seek declaration of her title in so far as the land under the building is concerned.
4. After hearing both the learned counsel on the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner we consider it a fit case in view of certain observations made in the impugned judgment, to permit the petitioner to seek declaration of title regarding the land under the building in question by filing a n suit in the Court of general jurisdiction. She, however, would not be entitled to regain the, possession in contravention of the orders of the learned Rent Controller which has been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment. A.A./K‑124/S Order accordingly.