2012 PLP 633 (SCMR)
Haji ALLAH RAKHA — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 633 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | Haji ALLAH RAKHA — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 633 (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 2012 PLP 633 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 633 (SCMR) (Haji ALLAH RAKHA — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Awais Khurram, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 10-8-2011 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in SAO No.108 of 2009).
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Tenant becoming co-sharer by purchasing half of the suit property
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court, to consider the question whether having purchased half of the suit property, was not the tenant (petitioner) entitled to retain possession of the joint property till its partition, and whether he could be ejected in such circumstances. Mst. Sanobar Sultan and others v. Obaidullah Khan PLD 2009 SC 71 and Abdul Zahir v. Jaffar Khan 2010 SCMR 189 ref. Respondent not represented.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner-defendant initially was a tenant in the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord, however, during the pendency of the appeal he purchased half of the suit property and thereby became a co-sharer. The grievance being made is that despite the afore-referred development and the law laid down by this Court in the judgments reported as MST. SANOBAR SULTAN AND OTHERS v. OBAIDULLAH KHAN (PLD 2009 SC 71) and ABDUL ZAHIR v. JAFFAR KHAN (2010 SCMR 189), he has concurrently been ejected which is not tenable in law.
2. When confronted with the query as to whether the petitioner is prepared to have the suit property partitioned, he readily agreed and suggested that let the respondent be summoned and this matter could be resolved even on the next date of hearing.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, leave is granted inter alia to consider whether having purchased half share of the suit property was the petitioner-defendant not entitled to retain the possession of the joint property till partition and could be ejected in the proceedings culminating in the impugned judgment. As it is a rent matter and only a short question of law is involved, office is directed to fix the main appeal in the last week of next month. M.W.A./A-10/SC Leave granted.