1988 PLP 1344 (SCMR)
TAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus SHAKOOR AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1344 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | TAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus SHAKOOR AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1344 (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 1988 PLP 1344 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1344 (SCMR) (TAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus SHAKOOR AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi,, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing 14th May, 1988.
- Syed Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi,, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(on appeal from the judgment dated 25-5-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in S.A.O. No.441 of 1978).
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Eviction order was passed by Rent Controller and affirmed in First and Second Appeals--Partition suit in respect of the property pending Findings of fact by all Courts below were against the tenant--No justification was made out for interference by Supreme Court--Supreme Court, while dismissing petition for leave observed that dismissal of petition would be without prejudice to the partition suit pending before a Civil Court; subject to the condition that if the tenant had not already vacated the premises, the said proceedings shall not continue without his vacating the premises.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A tenant` has through his Constitutional petition, called in question order of his eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed in first and second appeals leave to appeal has now been sought from judgment dated 25‑5‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby his Second Appeal against the order of his eviction was dismissed.
2. The findings of fact by all the learned Courts below are against the petitioner. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, no stay order having been passed by this Court, he is unable to controvert the position that the petitioner would have already been evicted. He, accordingly, made a prayer that, while dismissing this petition, it should be observed that the order of this Court shall not prejudice the partition suit pending before the lower Court. The request is reasonable. This petition is dismissed without prejudice to the partition suit pending before the lower Court; subject to the condition that if the petitioner has not already vacated the premises, the said proceedings shall not continue without his vacating the premises. M. B. A./T‑24/S Petition dismissed.