2000 PLP 2634 (YLR)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL AZIZ and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2634 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL AZIZ and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2634 (YLR)?
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 2000 PLP 2634 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2634 (YLR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL AZIZ and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2(c)(i)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ having ‑denied ‑existence‑of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, onus was on them to prove the issue, which they failed to discharge‑‑‑Tenants had to stand on their feet and were required to discharge onus of proof placed on them, but they failed to do that‑‑‑Courts below had concurrently found that tenants had failed to discharge onus of proof placed on them‑‑‑Such factual finding of Courts below based on record could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the decision of the learned Rent Controller, dated 5‑4‑2000 which has been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 15‑6‑2000. Issue No.1 had been framed by the learned trial Court in the following terms:‑‑‑ "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?" OPA
2. Evidence has been led by both parties. Both Courts below have considered the same and have come to the conclusion that the applicants/petitioners have failed to discharge the onus placed on them in respect of Issue No. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly emphasized the fact that the respondent Abdul Aziz has not been able to establish that he is owner of the disputed property. This question, as noted by the learned Rent Controller in his order on an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., filed by the respondent, is not relevant for the purpose of disposing of Issue No. l.‑ The petitioners have to stand on their feet and were required to discharge the onus of proof placed on them. Both Courts below have concurrently held that they have failed to discharge this onus. No sufficient ground has A been made out to interfere in the said factual findings, while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. In this view of the matter, this petition is without merit and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑294/L Petition dismissed.