1988 PLP 1937 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1937 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (b) Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1937 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (b) Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1937 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1937 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M.Akhtar Mir, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate- on-Record for Appellant.
- Mien Nazir Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 1988.
- S.M.Akhtar Mir, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Appellant.
- Mien Nazir Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11-8-1980, passed in Writ Petition No.8065 of 1980) --S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Ejectment--Leave to appeal was granted to consider argument raised on behalf of appellant that Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide whether nature of property was evacuee trust or not.
S.41--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV III of 1958) , S.10/11--Property in dispute evacuee property and transferred as such and P T D issued to original owner who sold property to respondent landlord--Neither Rent Controller nor Additional District Judge or High Court, held, had any jurisdiction to go beyond P . T . D and hold property other than evacuee property- Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant established through cogent evidence--Order of ejectment upheld.
Art.185(3)--Appreciation of evidence--Objection raised by appellant about recording of statements of witnesses--Objection considered and repelled by Court below on sound reasoning and no ground existed for coming to a different finding--Interference declined.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑Leave in this appeal was granted to consider the soundness of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Rent Controller, Gujranwala, had no jurisdiction to decide whether the nature of the property was evacuee trust or not.
2. A burnt site bearing Khasra No.678, situate in Street No.11, Gobind Garh, Gujranwala City, described in detail in para.1 of the ejectment petition, was an evacuee property and transferred to one Faqir Muhammad by the Settlement Department as back as 27th May, 1968 and P.T.D. was issued in his name. The said transferee subsequently sold this plot to Faiz Muhammad (Respondent No.3) through a registered sale‑deed dated 30‑5‑1973. The appellant was then inducted as a tenant in the suit property and on his failure to pay the rent he was proceeded against before the Rent Controller, Gujranwala, or a number of grounds. This application was resisted and the appellant also questioned the ownership of respondent No.3 and asserted that the property in his possession is owned by the Auqaf Department. A preliminary issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was framed, and the Rent Controller after recording the evidence in the case held the respondent as owner of the suit property. It was also found that the appellant was a rent defaulter and, therefore, his ejectment was ordered on 12‑7‑1979. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 2‑3‑1980, and his constitutional petition was also dismissed in limine on 11‑8‑1980. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The proposition raised in the leave granting order has been considered by us and we find that it has no substance. Since the property was an evacuee property and transferred to the original owner in May, 1968 and P.T.D. issued to him, who then sold it to respondent No.3, therefore, neither the Rent Controller nor the Additional District Judge, or the High Court had any jurisdiction to go beyond the P.T.D. and hold the property other than the evacuee property. The existence of relationship of landlord and tenant having been established through cogent evidence, the ejectment order was rightly passed. As the further determination of the nature of the property, the to approach the relevant authorities, if so advised.`
4. In so far the objection in recording the statements of Mat.Latifan, the wife of respondent No.3, and the other witnesses, this has been considered and repelled by the Courts below on sound reasoning and no ground exists for us to come to a different finding.
5. Finding no force in the appeal the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. M,Y.H./M‑558/S Appeal dismissed.