1990 PLP 641 (SCMR)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 641 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ.; Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mira, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 641 (SCMR)?
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 1990 PLP 641 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ.; Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mira, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 641 (SCMR) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. A. M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1989.
- Facts of the case briefly stated are that on 17‑8‑1981 respondent filed an application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent and also that he bona fide requires the premises for his personal use. Respondent contested these allegations and also denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and petitioner. On the basis of evidence produced by the parties, the Rent Controller held that petitioner was the tenant of respondent and his denial of this relationship was false and contemptuous, and in view of the admitted position that he had failed to pay any rent to respondent he was liable to eviction. On this view of the case, learned Rent Controller directed petitioner's eviction by the order dated 31‑8‑1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Balochistan High Court, Quetta, dated 25‑4‑1988 in F.A. O. No.154 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑All the pleas raised by tenant in support of the petition had already been examined by the Courts below and rejected for cogent and valid reasons‑‑ Petition being without merit, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th May, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of learned Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court dated 25‑4‑1988 by which an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing his eviction from the demised premises was upheld. Facts of the case briefly stated are that on 17‑8‑1981 respondent filed an application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent and also that he bona fide requires the premises for his personal use. Respondent contested these allegations and also denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and petitioner. On the basis of evidence produced by the parties, the Rent Controller held that petitioner was the tenant of respondent and his denial of this relationship was false and contemptuous, and in view of the admitted position that he had failed to pay any rent to respondent he was liable to eviction. On this view of the case, learned Rent Controller directed petitioner's eviction by the order dated 31‑8‑1987. On reappraisal of the evidence recorded in the case learned Chief Justice of the High Court also took the same view as prevailed with the learned Rent Controller and he accordingly dismissed petitioner's appeal by the impugned judgment. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record of the case, we find that all the pleas raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition have already been examined by the Courts below and rejected for cogent and valid reasons. There is therefore no force in this petition it is accordingly dismissed. With the dismissal of the petition, the interim order of this Court dated 7‑7‑1988 stands vacated. A.A./N‑196/S Petition dismissed.