1989 PLP 1321 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS‑‑Petitioner Versus NASEER AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1321 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNAS‑‑Petitioner Versus NASEER AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1321 (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 1989 PLP 1321 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1321 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUNAS‑‑Petitioner Versus NASEER AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasirn Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 3‑12‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.4241 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Personal bona fide need of landlord‑‑Reasons given by Appellate Court in rejecting plea of personal need were entirely untenable and the Court proceeded to discard the landlords' evidence on grounds not recognized by law‑‑Orders of Appellate Court, held, were rightly quashad by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a tenant under respondents Nos. I and 2 in a shop situate in Paisa Akhbar Street, New Anarkali, Lahore. The said respondents moved an application before the Rent Controller for his eviction on the ground that it was needed by one of them namely, respondent No. 1, for personal need. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller but in appeal by the‑petitioner the District Judge, Lahore set aside the order of eviction and dismissed the application. The respondents invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the District Judge. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition, quashed the order of the District Judge and restored that of the Rent Controller.The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. After examining the record, the High Court Mad that the reasons given by the learned District Judge in rejecting the plea of personal need were entirely untenable and that the learned District Judge had proceeded to discard the landlords evidence on grounds not recognised by law. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑865/S Petition dismissed.