1985 PLP 637 (SCMR)
Mistri MIRAJ DIN and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YAMIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 637 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mistri MIRAJ DIN and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YAMIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 637 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 637 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 637 (SCMR) (Mistri MIRAJ DIN and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YAMIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on-record for Respondent No.l.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 15.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 1981.
- M. Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate‑on‑record for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-2-1981 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 562/81 ).
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), -S. 15--Ejectment--Petitioners being licensee workers of tenant, asserting no right of their own in property, not allowed to challenge order of ejectment as they could not be held to be aggrieved parties--Plea raised in Supreme Court that they had some independent right in property, repelled--Once having accepted that they were licensees of tenant, petitioners could not change this position subsequently--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to
15. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1981. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ The petitioners are the licensees of one Fazal Ahmad, now represented by his Legal Representatives (respondents 11‑13). An ejectment petition was brought by the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1‑10 against Fazal Ahmad which was dismissed. Sometimes later, he brought another ejectment petition and ultimately an order of ejectment was passed against Fazal Ahmad on 3‑5‑1978. The appeal against the said order failed on 9‑11‑1980. The present petitioners brought a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order. The status of the petitioners was stated to be that of workers of respondents 11‑13 (Legal Representatives of Fazal Ahmad) and it was admitted that they had nothing to do with the suit property which, according to them, stood transferred in the name of Fazal Ahmad. The learned Judge in the High Court held that as the petitioners had asserted no right of their own in the property and had justified their presence only as workers of Fazal Ahmad they must abide by the fate of Fazal Ahmad. Therefore, if Fazal Ahmad was found liable to be ejected, the petitioners could not challenge the finding with respect to his ejectment as they could not be held to be aggrieved parties. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed in limine. In support of this petition for leave to appeal Mr. M. Aslam Khan has submitted that the second ejectment petition filed by the heirs of Sh. Abdur Rashid (Respondents 1‑10 herein) was barred by the principles of res judicata as envisaged in section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. We find no substance in this plea because the question for determination in the first petition was not the same as was the question to be determined in the second ejectment petition. In these circumstances, the second petition was not barred under section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. An attempt was also tried to be made to show before us that the petitioners had some independent right in the property. We consider that this plea cannot be entertained at this stage. This petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that once they had accepted that they were licensees of Fazal Ahmad they could not change this position subsequently. There is no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.