P L D 1979 Lahore 262 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Appellant, : Versus Mst. AKBARI BEGUM-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1979 Lahore 262 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Appellant, : Versus Mst. AKBARI BEGUM-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Lahore 262 (PLP)?
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 P L D 1979 Lahore 262 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Lahore 262 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Appellant, : Versus Mst. AKBARI BEGUM-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Inayat Hussain for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15(4) read with S. 13-Ground that landlady's son for whom shop in dispute needed had left country-Held, ejectment order passed by Rent Controller cannot be interfered with on such ground.
Judgment & Decree
This second appeal is directed against an order for ejectment of the appellant, Muhammad Rafique, from a shop owned by the respondent, Mst. Akbri Begum. The impugned order was passed by a Rent Controller and upheld, in appeal, by an Additional District Judge. The ground on which the ejectment of the appellant has been ordered is that the respondent required the shop in dispute for her son.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent's son for whom the shop was needed had gone abroad six months ago and, therefore, the shop was no longer required by her. This plea was not taken by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge who decided the first appeal on 23rd July 1978, during the last six months. Therefore, it appears to be an afterthought. Even if the respondent's son has gone abroad this is no reason for re-opening the case on merits. With a view to protecting the interests of a tenant in the situations like the one pointed out by the appellant, adequate safeguard has been made in subsection (4) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. If the appellant is dispossessed from the shop in dispute in execution of the impugned order but the shop is not occupied by her son within one month of his dispossession he (appellant) can regain the possession thereof under the aforesaid provisions of the law. The order under appeal, therefore, does not call for any interference on the ground that the respondent's son, who needed the shop in dispute, is alleged to have left the country.
3. No other contention was raised by the learned counsel.