1995 PLP 446 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed KAZIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 446 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed KAZIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 446 (MLD)?
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 1995 PLP 446 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 446 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed KAZIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan for Petitioners.
- M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12‑‑‑Application for ejectment of tenant stayed by Rent Controller pending decision of suit for specific performance of agreement of sale instituted by tenant against landlord relating to same property‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Interest of justice would be best served if both the matters be tried and decided together by one Court after holding consolidated proceedings‑‑‑Order of Rent Controller staying application for ejectment of tenant was set aside and District Judge was directed to entrust ejectment application to the same Court where suit for specific performance of agreement for sale filed by tenant against landlord was pending, whereafter Trial Court would consolidate the proceedings in ejectment application and civil suit and would try the same together. Dr. Arslan Razzaq v. Ali Hussain PLD 1993 Lah. 97 rel.
Judgment & Decree
M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1994. This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 4280/93 and 4331/93 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.
2. The petitioners in both these petitions have assailed order dated 21‑2‑1993 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala whereby pending the decision of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the proceedings in the two ejectment petitions filed by the petitioners were stayed.
3. Mr. Amir. Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there was no jurisdiction vested in the Rent Controller to have stayed the proceedings in the ejectment petitions merely because of pendency of a suit for specific performance instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioners. In the alternative, the learned counsel has argued that the Rent Controller instead of staying the proceedings, should have consolidated the ejectment petition and the suit for specific performance and decided the same together.
4. The latter course suggested by the petitioners' learned counsel appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case and finds approval from the judgment of this Court in Dr. Arslan Razzaq v. Ali Hussain (PLD 1993 Lah. 97) wherein it was observed that in such circumstances, the Civil Judge, hearing the suit and trying ejectment petition as a Rent Controller should consolidate both the proceedings so as to ensure fairness to both the parties.
5. Mr. M. Farani, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has also fairly conceded that it would be conducive in the interest of justice if both the matters be tried and decided together by one Court after holding consolidated proceedings. In view of what has been stated above, both these petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The learned District Judge shall entrust the ejectment petitions to the same Court where the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioners is pending whereafter, the learned Civil Judge/Rent Controller shall consolidate the proceedings in the ejectment petitions and the civil suit and shall try and decide the same together. No order as to costs. A.A./M‑1786/L Order accordingly.