1990 PLP 1343 (SCMR)
Malik DIN MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD BHATTI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1343 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Malik DIN MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD BHATTI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1343 (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 1990 PLP 1343 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1343 (SCMR) (Malik DIN MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD BHATTI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Advocate and Merajuddin Chaudhry, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate and M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 5‑12‑1979 in S.A.O. 259 of 1979). ‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Tenant undertaking to vacate demised premises if he was given specified time‑‑‑Landlord accepting tenant's undertaking and allowing petitioner to stay on for specified time‑‑‑Supreme Court disposed of petition for leave to appeal with consent of parties on basis of compromise.
Judgment & Decree
DORAB PATEL, J.‑‑‑After some arguments, Mr. Maqbul Ilahi Malik stated that the petitioner was building his own house which would be ready in about six months' time and that the petitioner would not press the petition if he was given time uptil the end of September, 1980 to vacate the demised premises. The respondent has filed a caveat and his learned counsel stated that he would have no objection if the petitioner stayed on in the demised premises until the end of September, 1980. In these, circumstances, we dismiss the petition, but by consent we grant the petitioner time upto 30th September, 1980 to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the monthly rent until he vacates the demised premises. AA./D‑80/S Order accordingly.