1982 PLP 1000 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1000 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1000 (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 1982 PLP 1000 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1000 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 1st November, 1981.
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High. Court, dated 23-9-1981, in W. P. 2988 of 1981).
S. 13-Ejectment-.Case concluded by factual finding regarding tenant's default in payment of rent and personal requirement of landlord-No violation of law in matter of appreciation of evidence by Courts below pointed out - Held, case not fit for interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The petitioner was directed to be evicted from the property in dispute by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 12‑11‑1980.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 25‑4‑1981.
3. The petitioner then filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 2988/81 which was dismissed by the High Court on 23‑9‑1981.
4. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders to this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. We must say that the case is concluded by factual finding regarding the default on the part of the petitioner in the payment of rent and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for personal use of, the property for his son. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any violation of law in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, and in the circumstances we feel that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. The result is that the petition is dismissed hereby. However learned counsel prayed for grant of one month's time to enable his client to vacate the property, whereafter, he undertook, that the petitioner would voluntarily surrender its possession to the landlord and will also continue paying rent. The petitioner is granted one month's time on the above conditions. Petition dismissed.