1982 PLP 365 (SCMR)
Mst. NAWAB BIBI ETC.-Petitioners Versus SAIFUR REHMAN ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 365 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NAWAB BIBI ETC.-Petitioners Versus SAIFUR REHMAN ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 365 (SCMR) (Mst. NAWAB BIBI ETC.-Petitioners Versus SAIFUR REHMAN ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 1980.
- Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31-I-75 in S. A. O. No. 308 of 1974).
S. 13(2)--High Court holding service of notice on statutory tenant having not been proved before Rent Controller case could not have been proceeded with at all and other respondents having claimed to be not sublettees and Rent Controller having accepted such claim, proceedings could not proceed against sub-tenants-Both questions pertaining to realm of facts, interference declined-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th October, 1980. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioners are successors‑in‑interest of Hashmat Ali deceased, the transferee of the property in dispute. One Muhammad Din was its occupant since 1948.
2. The petition for ejectment was filed against Muhammad Din and the other respondents on the grounds that Muhammad Din had defaulted in payment of rent and bad inducted the other respondents into the house as sub‑tenants. Muhammad Din did not contest the application. The other respondents did. The other respondents claim to be in occupation of the house in their own rights.
3. The Rent Controller passed an ejectment order against the said respondents on 1‑4‑
74. The respondents filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The respondents then filed a second appeal which was accepted by the Lahore (sigh Court on 31‑1‑
75. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
4. The judgment of the learned High Court is based on the finding that, the service of notice on Muhammad Din, the statutory tenant, not having been proved before the Rent Controller, the case could not have been proceeded with at all. Secondly the other respondents having claimed that the house was never sublet to them by Muhammad Din, a proposition which, having found favour with the learned Rent Controller, they could no have been proceeded against as sub‑tenants.
5. Both these questions pertain .to the realm of fact and it is not for this Court to interfere in it. Leave is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.