1994 PLP 1779 (SCMR)
ISLAM‑UD‑DIN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER‑II, MALAKAND AT SAIDU SHARIF, SWAT and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1779 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Actg. CJ, Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ISLAM‑UD‑DIN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER‑II, MALAKAND AT SAIDU SHARIF, SWAT and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1779 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1779 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Actg. CJ, Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1779 (SCMR) (ISLAM‑UD‑DIN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER‑II, MALAKAND AT SAIDU SHARIF, SWAT and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 14‑7‑1992, of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in W.P. No. 832/92). ‑‑‑‑S. 105‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Lease for specific years=‑‑Owner's suit for ejectment of lessee after expiry of lease was decreed by the revenue hierarchy‑‑‑Lessee's Constitutional petition also met with the same fate viz. dismissal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Lessee claimed that lease was extended by another five years after its expiry ‑‑‑Extended period of lease had also expired when petition for leave to appeal came up for hearing‑‑Lessee could not advance any plausible argument for grant of lease in spport of his claim‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.‑‑‑The facts are that Gul Nawaz Khan, respondent No. 4, filed a suit against the petitioners for their eviction from the land in dispute primarily on the ground that period of lease expired by efflux of time. The petitioners resisted the suit and raised the plea that after expiry of the lease in question; it was extended by 5 ydars, against which 3 years' period was still to be availed of by them. The Assistant Collector, Grade -I, passed an ejectment order against the petitioners but allowed them some compensation for improvement. This order was maintained by the Appellate and the Revisional forums. The petitioners then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court, but their writ petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 14‑7‑1992, from which leave to appeal is sought now.
2. We have heard the learned counsel. It is not disputed that by now the extended period of the lease claimed by the petitioners has also expired. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel could not advance any plausible argument to canvass grant of leave. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. AA./I‑187/S Petition dismissed.