1986 PLP 91 (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Appellants Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD RASHID VINE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 91 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Appellants Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD RASHID VINE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 91 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 91 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 91 (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Appellants Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD RASHID VINE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1985.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 21‑3‑1973, dismissing appellants' S.A.O. in a case under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. The case was called out at 10‑40 a.m. but no one has appeared to press the appeal.
3. Subsequently Raja Muhammad Anwar appeared for the appellants. He did not press the petition on merits but only argued that since the premises in question was a shop, 2 months time may be granted to the appellants to enable them to vacate the premises in question. He stated that the appellants undertake to deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent‑landlord on 1‑7‑1985 and that they (appellants) shall pay rent for these two months to the respondent landlord, in advance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent‑landlord has agreed to the grant of 2 months time to the appellants on the aforementioned conditions. Two months' time is, therefore, given to the appellants. They are required to vacate the house on 1‑7‑1985 and pay the rent to the landlord as undertaken by them. No order as to costs. M. Y. H. Order accordingly.