1991 PLP 1661 (SCMR)
Haji SAADAT HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus INAYATULLAH KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1661 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Haji SAADAT HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus INAYATULLAH KHAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1661 (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 1991 PLP 1661 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1661 (SCMR) (Haji SAADAT HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus INAYATULLAH KHAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Noor Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1990.
- M. Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Noor Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- The petitioner shall implead Shamas‑ul‑Wahab as a party in this case. It is stated that an Advocate having been appointed as a commission gave such a report after inspection of the spot which, as argued, supports the petitioner's contention. It would be in the interest of justice to ask the said learned Advocate who acted as commission to appear and assist the Court at the time of the hearing of appeal. Expenses for his appearance shall be borne by both the parties in equal shares. Stay to continue.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-11-1989 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.451 of 1989).
S. 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Ejectment of tenant on the ground of reconstruction
Intended reconstruction being of `bala khana' which was above two shops; one with the petitioner and the other with another tenant; only ejectment of petitioner tenant was sought
Question raised by tenant as that if "bala khana" on two shops could be reconstructed without disturbing one tenant, landlord had not shown that the construction above the shop occupied by petitioner/tenant could not be done without evicting him-- Landlord could not meet the points so raised adequately, except his assertion that shop in question occupied by tenant would also require re-construction-- Questions raised in petition required examination
Leave was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant against the dismissal by the 1‑sigh Court, of his Constitutional (Writ) petition which had arisen out of order of eviction passed against him on the ground of reconstruction pleaded by the respondent/landlord's side. Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that intended reconstruction being of Bala khana which is of two shops; one with the petitioner and the other. with Shamas‑ul‑Wahab another tenant, only the eviction of the petitioner was sought. The precise argument being that if the Bala Khana on the 2 shops could be reconstructed without disturbing one tenant, the respondent/landlord has not shown that the construction above the shop occupied by the petitioner could not be done without evicting him. In the alternative he has contended that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the petitioner is occupying such shop which is very big in area that the construction above it can be easily started and completed in such a manner so as to void petitioner's eviction. Accordingly, his further argument is that the reconstruction of the Bala Khana and the eviction of the petitioner for that reason is not being sought by the landlord in good faith. Learned counsel for the respondent in reply contended that the lack of good faith does not arise in this case. The relationship between the parties has been such that on earlier similar occasions also the landlord extended the petitioner's tenancy. When questioned as to why in case the relationship has been so good, the petitioner cannot be given the same treatment as was given to the tenant of the contiguous shop; namely, Shamas‑ul‑Wahab and in any case why the construction should not be done by the landlord without disturbing the petitioner. the learned counsel stated that he cannot answer this question without consulting his client, for which purpose he sought time. In the meanwhile he could not meet these points adequately, accept his assertion that the shop in dispute occupied by the petitioner would also require reconstruction. This and other questions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof. The petitioner shall implead Shamas‑ul‑Wahab as a party in this case. It is stated that an Advocate having been appointed as a commission gave such a report after inspection of the spot which, as argued, supports the petitioner's contention. It would be in the interest of justice to ask the said learned Advocate who acted as commission to appear and assist the Court at the time of the hearing of appeal. Expenses for his appearance shall be borne by both the parties in equal shares. Stay to continue. A.A./S‑521/S Order accordingly.