1988 PLP 1398 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus NOOR AHMAD and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1398 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus NOOR AHMAD and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1398 (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 1398 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1398 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus NOOR AHMAD and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Tayyab. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.l, 4 to 8
- Date of hearing: 22nd May 198
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Tayyab. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27-11-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.3432 of 1984). --S.13--Electmeut on ground of personal need of landlord--High Court, noted material placed on record from landlord which established bona fide personal requirement of landlord including the fact that landlord was occupying one shop since 1947 which was no longer fit for his use for business which had expanded during these years and that landlord's bona fide need was for more space and that is why the shop in dispute was purchased by him--Such finding of High Court suffered from no infirmity--Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.‑‑This is a leave to appeal petition by a tenant in a rent restriction matter. He was ordered to be evicted on ground of personal requirement of the respondents side. His appeal and Writ Petition were dismissed He has now sought leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel has contended that the material placed on record from the respondents‑side failed to establish their bona fide personal requirement. Same point was raised before the High Court. It noted the material brought on record to this behalf including the fact that the respondents/ landlords were occupying one shop since 1947. It was no longer fit for their use for business which had expanded during these years and that the respondents' bona fide need was for more space and that is why the shop in dispute was purchased by them.
3. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition, we find no justification to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court. It does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.B.A. /M‑473/S Leave refused.