1989 PLP 609 (SCMR)
ALI MUZAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 609 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ALI MUZAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 609 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 609 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 609 (SCMR) (ALI MUZAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Hariz‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1958.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑2‑1988, passed in Writ Petition No.4515 of 1984). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in the light of evidence on record, relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1958. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑2‑1988.
2. Taj Muhammad (respondent No.l) filed an eviction petition against the petitioner from a portion of the property in dispute on the ground of default in the payment of rent from February, 1980 to February, 1983 at the rate of Rs300 per month, personal need and unauthorized alteration, damage and nuisance. The petitioner denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as a result of which a solitary issue was framed and the Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties held that such a relationship did not exist and thus dismissed the ejectment petition on 12‑10‑1983. Respondent No.l then filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who, vide his judgment dated 30‑7‑1984, reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus accepted the appeal and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed property. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently contended that the learned Judge in his Chambers has erred in law in holding that the petitioner was a statutory tenant under the respondent and thus there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the learned counsel, as per evidence the status of the petitioner is that of a licensee and the only forum which was competent to proceed against the petitioner was the Civil Court.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of evidence on record, we think the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to proceed in the matter needs consideration. Leave is, therefore, A granted Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any. It is further directed that this appeal may be fixed for hearing at an early date. A.A./A‑395/S Leave to appeal granted.