1987 PLP 1355 (SCMR)
FAZAL DIN Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1355 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL DIN Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1355 (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 1987 PLP 1355 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1355 (SCMR) (FAZAL DIN Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abul Aasam Jafry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th May, 1987.
- Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑1‑1987 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.5456 of 1984) ‑‑S. 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑-‑Writ jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑High Court declining to interfere with concurrent finding of Rent Controller and appellate authority to the effect that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties‑‑Order upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal there are concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority to the effect that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Nasir Abbas and the petitioner. The High Court very properly declined to interfere with these findings. As regards the litigation pending in the civil Court, the learned Rent Controller has already observed that if the petitioner is able to establish in those proceedings that the document upon which the legal heirs of Nasir Abbas were relying to prove the transfer of the house in their favour, the trial Court would be able to give him the necessary relief. That being the position, we do not think that a case for interference by this Court has been made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M. I. /F‑14/S Petition dismissed.