1988 PLP 193 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus Sh. BASHIR AHMED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 193 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus Sh. BASHIR AHMED and 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 193 (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 193 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 193 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus Sh. BASHIR AHMED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record and Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22-5-1987 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2006 of 1985).
Ss. 13(3) & 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199--Writ jurisdiction, scope of--Misreading of evidence- -Ejectment case--Findings of Appellate Court set aside in writ jurisdiction- Ejectment on ground of personal need--Order set aside in appeal bat restored in writ jurisdiction--Plea raised that findings of Appellate Court were final and could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction- Appellate Court having misread evidence on record, his findings which were based on misreading of evidence, stood vitiated and such order, held, was not immune from interference in writ jurisdiction--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner is a tenant of a shop belonging to respondent No.
1. The said respondent No. 1 applied for the eviction of the tenant on the ground, inter alia, that he needed the same the bona fide for the use and occupation of his sons Shafiq Ahmed and Muhammad Shahid. The Rent Controller accepted the petition and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner/ tenant but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge accepted the tenant's appeal, reversed the said decision and rejected the ejectment petition. This order was challenged, in writ jurisdiction, by the landlord. A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the landlords' writ petition and set aside the order of the Additional District Judge passed on appeal and restored the order of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the petitioner. Hence this petition for leave to appeal by the tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on appeal were final and could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. This submission is correct, so far as it goes but where the Appellate Authority has based its decision on a misreading of evidence, such an order is not immune from interference in writ jurisdiction. As we agree with the High Court that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence on the record, his findings which were based on the aforesaid misreading of evidence stood vitiated. Hence the High Court could have interfered with the order. This petition, therefore, is without force and is dismissed accordingly. M.I. /M-244/S Petition dismissed.