1989 PLP 2034 (SCMR)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2034 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2034 (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 1989 PLP 2034 (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: 1989 PLP 2034 (SCMR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rchman, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 10th June, 1989
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑2‑1989 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 5758 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Leave to appeal sought by the sub‑tenant against dismissal of his Constitutional petition on the plea that main tenant having remained away from the proceedings, no order against sub tenant could have been passed even if he was adjudged as a sub‑tenant‑‑Held, sub‑tenant's plea being extraordinary one, if accepted the main tenant would not attend the proceedings and the sub‑tenants would get away with ill‑gotten gains which was never the intention of law whether substantive or procedural Subtenant described his position and status in the property as that of an 'occupant' not taking the position of his being an owner, a trespasser, a tenant or an alienee, in any form‑‑Dishonest tenant who wanted to retain the possession of a property through illegal means, would lose his right to obtain discretionary relief either in writ jurisdiction of the High Court or before the. Supreme Court in its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUI IAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a sub‑tenant, against the dismissal of his Writ Petition by the High Court.
2. Learned counsel has contended that the main tenant having remained away from the proceedings no order against' the petitioner could have been passed even if he was adjudged as a sub‑tenant.
3. It is an extraordinary plea. If accepted the main tenant would not attend` the proceedings and the sub‑tenants would get away with ill‑gotten gains. This was never the intention of law whether substantive or procedural.
4. Moreover there is an additional factor in this case. When questioned as to what is the position and status of the petitioner in the property in question the counsel answered that he is an "occupant" thereof. He has not taken the position of his being an owner, a trespasser, a tenant or an alienee, in any form. In a recent order we have ruled that a dishonest tenant who wants to retain the possession of a property through illegal means, loses his right to obtain discretionary relief either in writ jurisdiction of the High Court or before the Supreme Court in its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. And indeed this principle would apply to every exercise of discretion elsewhere as well. This rule fully applies to the petitioner also. Leave, in the circumstances of this case, is refused. A.A./M‑1079/S Leave refused.