1983 PLP 1272 (SCMR)
ABDUR RASHID CHAUDHARY AND OTRERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD UMER AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1272 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID CHAUDHARY AND OTRERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD UMER AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan t1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1272 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan t1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1272 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1272 (SCMR) (ABDUR RASHID CHAUDHARY AND OTRERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD UMER AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 9th May, 1983.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1lth November; 1981 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 10134 of 1980).
Art.185(31--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-Fundamental issue in connection with question whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties was whether tenant executed rent deed in question-High Court and appellate Court without adverting to fundamental question discarding rent deed on ground that there were discrepancies in evidence of landlord on point as to place of execution of rent deed and such other defects-Held, grounds taken by High Court and appellate Court were hardly of any significance if it was found that tenant had indeed executed rent deed--Question requiring further considera tion-Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 9th May, 1983. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petition for ejectment filed by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners herein has failed on the ground that the Courts below were of the view that the latter had not been able to establish that respondent No. 1 was his tenant. The fundamental issue in connection with the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties was whether respondent No. 1 had executed the rent deed in question. The Rent Controller had held that he had done so, but the Additional District Judge and the High Court without adverting to this question thought it fit to discard the rent deed on the ground that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the landlord on the point as to place of its execution and some such other defects. We feel that the above circumstances were hardly of any significance if it was found that the respondents had indeed executed the rent deed. . The case requires further consideration. Leave granted. Security Rs. 2,
500. M. Z. M. Leave granted.