1994 PLP 1752 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE HAIDER QURESHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, PESHAWAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1752 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE HAIDER QURESHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, PESHAWAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1752 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1752 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1752 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE HAIDER QURESHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, PESHAWAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993.
- WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Siddique Haider Qureshi, Advocate, petitioner herein, seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 15‑1‑1992, whereby his Civil Appeal No. 12‑P of 1991 was dismissed with costs.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of judgment of this Court dated 15‑1‑1992 in Civil Appeal No. 12‑P/91). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13(2), Second Proviso [(as amended by North‑West Frontier Province Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, (XII of 1972)]‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Petitioner reiterating his submission made at the time of hearing of appeal and submitting that tenant being a previous defaulter as well and, was not entitled to the benefit of second Proviso of S. 13(2), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (as amended)‑‑‑Such contention had no force, inasmuch as, no evidence ‑was led to the effect that tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent on earlier occasion as well‑‑‑No case was made out for review‑‑‑Review application was dismissed in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Siddique Haider Qureshi, Advocate, petitioner herein, seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 15‑1‑1992, whereby his Civil Appeal No. 12‑P of 1991 was dismissed with costs. We have heard the petitioner in person and have perused the record of the case. He reiterated his submissions made at the time of the hearing of the appeal and submitted that respondent 3 was a previous defaulter as well and, in consequence, is not entitled to the benefit of second proviso of section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as amended by N.‑W.F.P. Amendment Ordinance, 1972. We are afraid this contention has no force, inasmuch as, no evidence was led to the effect that the respondent 3 had defaulted in the payment of rent on earlier occasions as well. No case has been made out for review and petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the costs imposed upon the petitioner in the impugned judgment is waived. A.A/M‑1929/S Review dismissed.