1983 PLP 473 (SCMR)
UMAR DIN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAN WALA
| Citation | 1983 PLP 473 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR DIN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAN WALA |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 473 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 473 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 473 (SCMR) (UMAR DIN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAN WALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 8th January, 1983.
- M. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-6-1981 in W. P. 2505/81). -- Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-Ejectment on ground of personal need of land lord-Order of Rent Controller reversed by Additional District Judge on appeal by tenant and writ petition against appellate order dismissed by High Court--Contention that there was misreading of evidence by appellate Court and High Court-Such contention found to have been taken into consideration by High Court which found that even if misreading of evidence be ignored rest of evidence on record established that premises in dispute was not required by landlord-petitioner in good faith-Held, finding of High Court cannot be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Ejectment on ground of personal need of land lord‑Order of Rent Controller reversed by Additional District Judge on appeal by tenant and writ petition against appellate order dismissed by High Court‑‑Contention that there was misreading of evidence by appellate Court and High Court‑Such contention found to have been taken into consideration by High Court which found that even if misreading of evidence be ignored rest of evidence on record established that premises in dispute was not required by landlord‑petitioner in good faith‑Held, finding of High Court cannot be interfered with. M. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing : 8th January, 1983. MIAN BURHAUDDIN KHAN, J.‑This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑6‑1981, passed in Writ Petition No. 2505 of 1981.
2. Petitioner moved an application for the eviction of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 Masood Ahmad and Khurshid Ahmad from the disputed premises on the ground of personal need. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 22‑5‑1980, ordered eviction of the respondents. This order was impugned by the respondents in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, who reversed the finding of the trial Court holding that the petitioner had filed the present ejectment petition after having failed in the first round of litigation for eviction of the respondents from the same shop. Thereafter, writ petition was preferred before the Lahore High Court against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 9‑4‑1981 which resulted in the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that there was misreading of the evidence by the learned Additional District Judge and by the learned Judge of the High Court ; that the learned High Court Judge for no reason, discarded the contention of the petitioner's counsel, that the misreading of evidence by the learned Additional District Judge was material for the decision of the case which had influenced the mind of the Court.
4. We have examined the contention raised by the learned counsel and find that the learned High Court Judge has taken into consideration this argument but found that even if the misreading of evidence by the Additional District Judge be ignored, the rest of the evidence on the record would establish that the premises was not required, in good faith, by the petitioner. This petition is without any substance and we are not inclined to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.