1985 PLP 1378 (SCMR)
KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAQUE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1378 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAQUE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1378 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1378 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1378 (SCMR) (KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAQUE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1985.
- 2. This case has a long history and this is the third round of litigation between the parties. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, however, the relevant facts are that the respondent‑landlord applied for petitioner's eviction from Shop No. 130, Ward No. 6, Bhawana Bazar, Faisalabad, in January, 1976, on the ground of non‑payment of rent by him. This application was rejected by the Rent Controller. But on appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, by his judgment, dated 17‑1‑1980, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the petitioner had committed default of payment of rent and also came to the conclusion that the ground of bona fide personal need proved. He, therefore, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24‑4‑1984 passed in W.P. No. 7885/80). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑‑Ejectment on grounds of default in payment of rent/personal need‑‑Order impugned in Constitutional petition on grounds merely relating to questions of fact‑‑Petition being devoid of merits and not competent, order of dismissal, held, not open to interference‑ Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Khuda Bakhsh petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24‑4‑1984 dismissing his writ petition in a rent matter.
2. This case has a long history and this is the third round of litigation between the parties. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, however, the relevant facts are that the respondent‑landlord applied for petitioner's eviction from Shop No. 130, Ward No. 6, Bhawana Bazar, Faisalabad, in January, 1976, on the ground of non‑payment of rent by him. This application was rejected by the Rent Controller. But on appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, by his judgment, dated 17‑1‑1980, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the petitioner had committed default of payment of rent and also came to the conclusion that the ground of bona fide personal need proved. He, therefore, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question. Feeling aggrieved the, petitioner filed an S. A . O. , which subsequently abated by operation of law. He then filed a writ petition which, too, was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned judgment we feel that the ground on which the writ petition was filed merely related to questions of the same was not, therefore competent and should have been dismissed on this ground alone. The High Court has, however, also considered the case on merits and found no force in it.
4. For the foregoing reasons we do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.