P L D 1974 Quetta 1 (PLP)
SAFDARALI-Appellant Versus MOHAMMADALI-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1974 Quetta 1 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel, J |
| Parties | SAFDARALI-Appellant Versus MOHAMMADALI-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1974 Quetta 1 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (e) Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1974 Quetta 1 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Dorab Patel, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1974 Quetta 1 (PLP) (SAFDARALI-Appellant Versus MOHAMMADALI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahoor-ul-Haq for Appellant.
- Mirza Mohammad Ahmad with Munawar Ahmad for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd September 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13-Jurisdiction-Frivolous and baseless objection about juris diction
Need not be considered by Rent Controller
Rent Controller also not required to consider such objection not pressed by party concerned though pleaded in his written statement. If a Rent Controller need not consider an objection about jurisdiction which appears to be frivolous or baseless, he is also not required to consider an objection which is not pressed by the party concerned. If the tenant raises an objection about jurisdiction, which is not a frivolous or sham objection, the Rent Controller should decide this objection first, provided his attention is drawn to it by the tenant, and if the tenant wishes to produce evidence he should be allowed to do so. But if the tenant does not make any effort to have his objection about jurisdiction decided as a preliminary legal objection and does not care to produce evidence at that stage, then, the Rent Controller is under no obligation whatever to frame an issue merely because an objection to his jurisdiction has been pleaded by the tenant in his written statement, the more so as many objections in written statements are frequently dropped even in suits in the regular Courts. Muhammad Ismail v. Israr Ahmed P L D 1961 Lah. 601 held not applicable. Dr. Ilyas Dobash v. Muhammad Iqbal P L D 1960 Lah. 1112 and Muhammad Rizwan v. Ashiq Ali P L D 1966 Quetta 11 ref. Mehdi Hassan v. Ghulam Muhammad P L D 1964 Lah. 641; Ali Muhammad v. Jamal Din P L D 1966 Lah. 934; Habibullah v. Vasdevgir P L D 1968 Kar. 869 and Muhammad Amin v. Jamshed Ali P L D 1967 Lah. 856 distinguished. 13(6), read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIV Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Not applicable to proceedings before Rent Controller-Rent Controller's discretion in matter of framing of issues-Not fettered by provisions of O. XIV, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Khadim Mohyuddin v. Rehmat Ali P L D 1965 S C 459 ref. S. 13 - Jurisdiction - Parties entitled to challenge Rent Con troller's order on ground of its being without jurisdiction-Such objection however has to be pressed before Rent Controller and not at appeal stage. Mahmud Khan v. Muhammad Ahmad 1968 S C M R 351 ref. 13-A-Section requires notice to be given by landlord purchas ing demised premises and from none else. 115-Estoppel-Party in position to object to matter in differ ence being beyond jurisdiction of tribunal but deliberately elect ing to waive objection and proceeding as if no such objection existed-Cannot be allowed to raise objection as to jurisdiction of tribunal. Bower's Classic Treatise on Estoppel, 2nd Edn., p. 308 ref.
Judgment & Decree
13(6), read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIV Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Not applicable to proceedings before Rent Controller-Rent Controller's discretion in matter of framing of issues-Not fettered by provisions of O. XIV, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Khadim Mohyuddin v. Rehmat Ali P L D 1965 S C 459 ref. (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- S. 13 - Jurisdiction - Parties entitled to challenge Rent Con troller's order on ground of its being without jurisdiction-Such objection however has to be pressed before Rent Controller and not at appeal stage. Mahmud Khan v. Muhammad Ahmad 1968 S C M R 351 ref. (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- 13-A-Section requires notice to be given by landlord purchas ing demised premises and from none else. (e) Evidence Act (I of 1872)- 115-Estoppel-Party in position to object to matter in differ ence being beyond jurisdiction of tribunal but deliberately elect ing to waive objection and proceeding as if no such objection existed-Cannot be allowed to raise objection as to jurisdiction of tribunal. Bower's Classic Treatise on Estoppel, 2nd Edn., p. 308 ref. Zahoor-ul-Haq for Appellant. Mirza Mohammad Ahmad with Munawar Ahmad for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd September 1973.