1991 PLP 1194 (CLC)
SHAUKAT ALI MEHR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Sardar SHER AFGAN A.D.C. (G) and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1194 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI MEHR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Sardar SHER AFGAN A.D.C. (G) and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1194 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1194 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1194 (CLC) (SHAUKAT ALI MEHR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Sardar SHER AFGAN A.D.C. (G) and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amir Alarn Khan for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. with Abdul Samad Hashmi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance (IX of 1966)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 5 ‑‑‑ Unauthorised occupant ‑‑‑ Ejectment of ‑‑‑ Petitioner, occupying plot in dispute as tenant himself gave undertaking to Government to vacate same if required by Government to construct a new hospital building at that plot‑‑ Government later on initiated proceedings for ejectment against petitioner tenant ‑‑‑ Petitioner, held was bound by his undertaking and could not be permitted to take shelter behind technicalities ‑‑‑ Contention of petitioner that he initially entered into premises as tenant with permission of previous owner from whom Government had purchased premises in dispute and therefore he could not be treated as unauthorised occupant, was repelled. Province of East Pakistan and 2 others v. Messrs Allahwala & Co. and others P L D 1971 SC 476 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. with Abdul Samad Hashmi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1991. The disput6; in this case relates to Flat No.1, 17‑Queens Road, Lahore. It is admittedly owned by the Punjab Government. The Punjab Health Department respondent No.3, herein, initiated proceedings for ejectment of the petitioner under the Punjab Government lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance IX of 1966. The petitioner claims to be a tenant under the previous owner.
2. In this background Mr. Amir Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Province of East Pakistan and 2 others v. Messrs Allahwala. and Co. and others (P L D 1971 SC 476) contends that since the petitioner initially A entered into the' premises as tenant with permission of the previous owner, therefore, he could not be treated as an unauthorised occupant' under the aforesaid Ordinance. The contention is devoid of any force. The petitioner gave an undertaking to the Provincial Government to vacate the plot if required by the hospital for construction of new block comprising of ward proposed to house 300 in‑door patients. The undertaking reads as under:‑ I am occupying Flat No.1, 17‑Queens Road, Lahore as a tenant. I have been informed by you that the premises have now been purchased by Ganga Ram Hospital to construct a new hospital building at the premises and that the flat is required for the purpose. In this view of the matter, it is clarified that as soon as a new building is raised on the main plot and a new hospital is about to start functioning, the flat will be vacated at that time or even before as the exigencies of the situation requires. Meanwhile, I will try to get an alternative accommodation. This is to ensure you of my best cooperation at all times.
3. The petitioner is, therefore, bound by his undertaking and can not be If permitted to take shelter behind technicalities. The law laid down in Province of East Pakistan (supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑898/L Petition dismissed.