1983 PLP 1262 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1262 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1262 (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 1262 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1262 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Ashhab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th May, 1983.
- Malik Muhammad Ashhab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 27-.4-1980 of the Lahore High Court passed on S. A. O. No. 19 of 1973). -- Art, 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-Bona fide personal use of landlord.-Question one of fact and concurrently concluded against petitioner by all three Courts below-Held, hardly any scope for interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Ashhab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th May, 1983. M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The petitioner is a tenant against whom an order of ejectment was passed on the ground of bona fide personal use of the landlord. The decision has been upheld in the first appeal before the District Judge, Gujrat, and in second appeal before the Lahore High Court. Since the question is one of fact and has been concurrently concluded against the petitioner by all the three Courts below, there is hardly any scope for interference by this Court.
2. However, it is urged that the Rent Controller had erred in deciding the matter without first disposing of an application filed by the petitioner before him for adducing additional evidence. The contention which had for the first time been taken before the learned District Judge has been dealt with by both the appellate Courts below and rejected. The learned judge of the High Court after scrutiny of the record noticed that the application and the accompanying affidavit, had been placed "at fag end of the file and had not been numbered", that no such ground had been taken in the memorandum of the first appeal nor had any application been made for further inquiry under section 15(3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The learned Judge, therefore, agreed with the first appellate Court that the application had been "manoeuvred to be brought on the file of the trial Court" after the appeal had been admitted for regular hearing.
3. We thus find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed: M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.