1994 PLP 616 (MLD)
MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 616 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance M or 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 616 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance M or 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 616 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 616 (MLD) (MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Saleem for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, has contended that the petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and in the circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller acted arbitrarily in closing the evidence after allowing only one adjournment. Learned Counsel for respondents initially defended the impugned order but later on, stated that with a view to obviate the delay and avoid any further controversy, he has no objection if this petition is accepted and petitioners are allowed to produce evidence before the Rent Controller. This offer on the part of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 5 is just and fair and is accordingly accepted.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.13 & 16
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
After hearing evidence of landlords, case was adjourned for production of evidence by tenants, but even on second adjourned date of hearing tenants, instead of producing evidence, filed application for further adjournment of case on ground that one of the tenants was proceeding to Haj
Rent Controller, finding no merits in application of tenants, rejected same and after closing evidence of tenants, passed ejectment order against tenants
After dismissal of appeal against order of Rent Controller, tenants challenged orders of Courts below in Constitutional petition contending that they were not - afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and Rent Controller had acted arbitrarily in closing their evidence
Landlords with a view to obviate delay and avoid any further controversy stated that they had no objection if Constitutional petition filed by tenants was accepted and they were allowed to produce evidence before Rent Controller
Offer on the part of landlords being just and fair, was accepted by High Court and after setting aside orders of Courts below, remanded case for decision afresh after allowing one opportunity to tenants to produce evidence.
Judgment & Decree
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 against the petitioner seeking their eviction from shop situate Main Bazar, Ghala Mandi Silanwali, Tehsil and District Sargodha on the grounds of subletting, personal use and reconstruction.
2. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 produced their evidence on 7-3-1990 whereafter the case was adjourned for the evidence of petitioners to 10-4-1990 on which case no evidence was forthcoming and case was adjourned for production of evidence of the petitioners on 23rd May, 1990. On that date, instead of producing evidence, petitioners filed an application that petitioner No.3, Munir Ahmad was proceeding to Haj and, therefore, the case be adjourned. Finding no merit in the application, the Rent Controller rejected it and proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioners. Subsequently, on 27th May, 1990, an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioners and in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to
5. That order was challenged by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 29th November, 1990.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, has contended that the petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and in the circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller acted arbitrarily in closing the evidence after allowing only one adjournment. Learned Counsel for respondents initially defended the impugned order but later on, stated that with a view to obviate the delay and avoid any further controversy, he has no objection if this petition is accepted and petitioners are allowed to produce evidence before the Rent Controller. This offer on the part of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 5 is just and fair and is accordingly accepted. As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the application for eviction filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 against the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the Rent Controller and shall be decided after allowing one opportunity to the petitioners to produce evidence. The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller or a successor on 26th July, 1992. The Rent Controller shall fix a date in the month of September for production of evidence by the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to produce evidence on the fixed date, their evidence shall be deemed to have been closed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M-589/L Order accordingly.