1988 PLP 1939 (SCMR)
IJAZ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. HUSSAN ARA — Petitioner
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1939 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | IJAZ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. HUSSAN ARA — Petitioner |
| Primary Law | (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1939 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1939 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1939 (SCMR) (IJAZ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. HUSSAN ARA — Petitioner). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqsood Ahmed, Advocate Supreme. Court and Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate- on-Record (absent) for Petitioners,
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988.
- Maqsood Ahmed, Advocate Supreme. Court and Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners,
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment and order of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 19-4-1988 in W.P.119 of 1988).
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Ejectment-- Personal requirement-- Tenant's plea that disputed portion on rent with him was for non-residential purpose was not raised before High Court--Whether rented unit was constructed and/or let out as non-residential, being a question of fact, answer to question like one raised depended upon circumstances of each case--Plea having not been raised earlier, interference declined by Supreme Court.
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Constitutional jurisdiction--Bona fide personal requirement by landlord being a question of fact and findings not suffering from any infirmity- Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the tenants' side in a Rent Restriction Law case, against the order of their eviction and the dismissal of their writ petition in that behalf, by the Peshawar High Court, The respondent No.1 a widow and her minor children succeeded in obtaining the eviction order on the ground of their personal requirement. Sethi Abdul Latif, their predecessor‑in‑interest and the original landlord, at the commencement of the proceedings (197911978), died in the meanwhile. The disputed 'building' is actually a part of a bigger building, this part is being used by the petitioners as a shop/godown, in the business of foodgrains; while the remaining part is with landlords for residential purposes. The latter have got it vacated for personal use, as Baithak with the remaining residential unit, which it seems is mainly on the upper floors. Learned counsel has contended that the disputed portion being on rent with the petitioners for non‑residential purpose could not be got vacated for residential purpose. This particular plea was not raised in the High Court. The case‑lab on the question of conversion of residential building into non‑residential, ordinarily would not be attracted to the conversion vice‑versa. Moreover, in a case like the present one, it is a question of fact whether the rented unit was constructed and/or let out as non‑residential. The answer to the question like the one raised would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The same not having been raised earlier, no interference is called for, on this basis. The learned counsel next raised the plea of res judicata; but could not press it, after noticing its treatment by the High Court on the basis of a Supreme Court's judgment. The learned counsel also urged the other points on the findings of fact, relatable to the personal requirement of the respondents. After going through the relevant part of the evidence, on the request of the learned counsel, we are of the view that these findings do not suffer from any infirmity justifying interference by this Court. This petition accordingly is dismissed M.Y.H./I‑45/S Petition dismissed.