1994 PLP 472 (CLC)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD BALOCH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 472 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD BALOCH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 472 (CLC)?
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 1994 PLP 472 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 472 (CLC) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD BALOCH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ras Tariq Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Yousaf Kazmi for Respondent No.2
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Execution of ex parte ejectment order‑‑‑Once Rent Controller had entertained application of tenant for setting aside ex parte ejectment order passed against him and had proceeded to decide same on merits after recording evidence of parties, he should have stayed execution of ex parte ejectment order.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Execution of ex parte ejectment order‑‑‑Once Rent Controller had entertained application of tenant for setting aside ex parte ejectment order passed against him and had proceeded to decide same on merits after recording evidence of parties, he should have stayed execution of ex parte ejectment order. Ras Tariq Chaudhry for Petitioner. Yousaf Kazmi for Respondent No.2 This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 8‑6‑1992, by which a learned Rent Controller at Lahore dismissed the application of the petitioner for staying the ex parte ejectment order passed against him in respect of the disputed property on the eviction application moved by respondent No.2, after entertaining petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order and taking proceedings thereon.
2. Once the learned Rent Controller had entertained the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order and had proceeded to decide it on merits after recording the evidence of the parties, as a necessary corollary thereof he should have stayed the execution of the ex parte ejectment order but he turned down the request of the petitioner arbitrarily. However, the, petitioner has not suffered on account of refusal of the stay order because, as pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2; on petitioner's appeal against the ex parte ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the operation of that order has been suspended by the learned Additional District Judge in whose court the appeal is even now pending.
3. This being so, the filing of this writ petition by the petitioner against any future apprehension is uncalled for and the same is dismissed in limine as premature. H.B.T./G‑100/L Petition dismissed.