1998 PLP 676 (SCMR)
RAJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik IFTIKHAR AHMED ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 676 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ |
| Parties | RAJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik IFTIKHAR AHMED ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 676 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 676 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 676 (SCMR) (RAJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik IFTIKHAR AHMED ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1997.
- 2. In support of the above petition Mr.S.M. Zafar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, has invited our attention to an order dated 3‑6‑1996 passed by the same learned Single Judge on petitioner's Civil Miscellaneous No. 343‑C of 1996 filed by them in the aforesaid First Appeal from Order under, section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment dated 4‑4‑1996 of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal from Order No. 133 of 1995 on the ground that the petitioners had learnt that Shop No.172 on the same road was in occupation of the respondent/landlord, who inherited the same from his mother and this fact was suppressed by him in the proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as before the High Court. The above application; was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his above order in limine.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑4‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in F. A. O. No. 133 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 17
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller affirmed by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Tenants invited Court's attention to order passed by High Court on their application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside its judgment on ground that tenants had learnt that shop of specified number on same road was in occupation of landlord who inherited the same from his mother and such fact was suppressed by him in proceedings before Rent Controller as also before the High Court and that such application was dismissed by High Court‑‑‑Tenants, however, admitted that no petition for leave to appeal was filed against order of High Court‑‑‑Order of High Court in terms of S.12(2), C. P. C. had, thus, acquired finality ‑‑‑Tenants, however, candidly submitted that apart from said plea it was not possible for them to assail concurrent findings on question of fact‑‑‑Tenants requested for reasonable time to vacate premises in question‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused but six months' time was granted to tenants on condition that they, would continue to pay rent regularly‑‑‑In case of tenant's failure to hand over vacant premises on expiry of period granted by Court, Rent Controller would issue writ of possession with Police aid without any further notice to tenants.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4‑4‑1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in First Appeal from Order No. 113 of 1995, filed by the petitioner against the ejectment order dated 18‑5‑995 of the learned Rent Controller, Sialkot Cantt., on the ground of respondent's personal requirement, dismissing the same and thus affirming the above finding of fact in favour of the respondent. The petitioner/tenant has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Mr.S.M. Zafar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, has invited our attention to an order dated 3‑6‑1996 passed by the same learned Single Judge on petitioner's Civil Miscellaneous No. 343‑C of 1996 filed by them in the aforesaid First Appeal from Order under, section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment dated 4‑4‑1996 of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal from Order No. 133 of 1995 on the ground that the petitioners had learnt that Shop No.172 on the same road was in occupation of the respondent/landlord, who inherited the same from his mother and this fact was suppressed by him in the proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as before the High Court. The above application; was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his above order in limine.
3. We enquired front Mr S.M. Zafar, as to whether any petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order dated 3‑6‑1996. He candidly submitted that no petition was filed. In this view of the matter, the above order had acquired finality. The petitioners, have, raised the above plea in the present petition which cannot be done as it is solely directed against the aforesaid judgment dated 4‑4‑1996, Confronted with the above legal position, Mr, S.M. Zafar has fairly conceded that it is not possible for him to show that the, concurrent finding on the above question of fact of personal requirement is not sustainable without invoking in aid the above additional fact discovered by the petitioners about the possession of Shop No.
172. He, therefore, requested for reasonable time to vacate possession under the instructions of his clients.
4. We decline leave but grant six months' time to the petitioners from today on the condition that they shall continue to pay rent regularly. Additionally, if the petitioners fail to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop on the expiry of above period, the learned Rent Controller shall issue al writ of possession with Police aid without any further notice to the petitioners. A.A./R‑17/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused