2003 PLP 1797 (SCMR)
Ch. SHAHBAZ BABAR — Petitioner Versus Mrs. REHMANA MIRZA — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1797 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. SHAHBAZ BABAR — Petitioner Versus Mrs. REHMANA MIRZA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1797 (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 2003 PLP 1797 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1797 (SCMR) (Ch. SHAHBAZ BABAR — Petitioner Versus Mrs. REHMANA MIRZA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan and Ras Tariq Chaudhary, Advocates Supreme Court with Wallayat Omar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th February, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14-1-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in S.A.O. No.62 of 2001).
S.13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Bona fide personal need of landlady for her husband
Eviction order passed by Rent Controller was maintained by High Court
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether in view of deliberate omission of word 'husband' in S.13 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the eviction order could be passed for the benefit of the husband.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 14-1-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed S.A.O. No.62 of 2001 filed by the petitioner and maintained the earlier orders of eviction passed against him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent lady never claimed the disputed property for her own personal use or the use of her children and the Courts below have rendered the eviction orders totally in violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), without appreciating the evidence of the parties brought on record in its true perspective. To substantiate this stance, learned counsel has made reference to the pleadings of the petition filed under section 13 of the Ordinance by the respondent as well as evidence brought on record by the parties. He has further contended that the respondent lady had nowhere stated that the property under dispute was required for her own use. On the contrary, the evidence in this regard is that the same was required for the independent use of her husband In support of the above claim he has placed reliance on Mrs. Noor Jehan Bai v. Muhammad Yousaf (Z002 SCMR 1933) and Ch. Akbar Hussain v. Mrs. Zehra Bai (2002 SCMR 789).
3. Leave is granted to give an authoritative pronouncement on the point. Whether in view of deliberate omission of the word "husband" in section 13 of the Ordinance the eviction orders could be passed for his benefit in the facts of the present case. Let status quo be maintained during' the pendency of the appeal emanating out of this petition, which shall be listed for hearing at an early date, being rent matter, subject to soliciting necessary approval of the Honourable Chief Justice. M.H./S-308/S Leave granted.