1990 PLP 544 (SCMR)
NISAR AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN and 6 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 544 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NISAR AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN and 6 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (V1 of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 544 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (V1 of 1959)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 544 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 544 (SCMR) (NISAR AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN and 6 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑5‑1989 m Writ Petition No. 2556 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bona ride personal need of landlord‑‑‑Demand for increase of rent per se could neither be a basis for finding of mala fides nor such like alleged mala (ides could be the basis for eviction, in every case‑‑‑Tenant could not point out anything so as to demonstrate that demand of increased rent even if factually made would make the subsequent demand for eviction on ground of personal requirement, as otherwise than bona fide‑‑‑Judgment of High Court notwithstanding so‑called error that proper attention had not been paid to tenant's plea that landlord had at one time wanted to increase rent, therefore, it was a mala fide application for eviction, held, remained unexceptionable‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his writ petition. It had arisen out of order of his ejectment under the Rent Restriction Law. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that proper attention has not been paid to the petitioner's plea that the landlord side had at one time wanted to increase the rent, therefore, it was a mala fide application for eviction. The issue of personal requirement accordingly should have been decided against them. We cannot accept the very wide argument vis‑a‑vis, tire demand for increase of rent, as presented by the learned counsel. Such a demand per se can neither be a basis for a finding of mala rides nor such like alleged mala fides, can be the basis for rejection of an application for eviction, in every case. Nothing has been pointed out in this case, so as to demonstrate that the demand of increased rent even if factually made, would make the subsequent demand for eviction on ground of personal requirement, as otherwise than bona fide. The High Court judgment notwithstanding the so‑called error pointed out by the learned counsel, thus remains unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. By the consent of both the learned counsel the petitioner is allowed four months further time to surrender vacant possession to the respondents side, without notice and without execution proceedings; but subject to regular payment of agreed rent. M.A.K./N‑203/S Leave refused.