1986 PLP 981 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IDREES — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 981 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IDREES — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 981 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 981 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 981 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IDREES — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1985.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23-10-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 133 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 53-A- Petitioner denying being tenant on basis of having entered into agreement for sale of suit property and claiming protection under S. 53-A of Act (IV of 1882)--Held, petitioner not having entered into possession of property under terms of contract or agreement, could not claim such protection--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This is a rent case. The petitioner had denied being a tenant under respondent No.3 on the ground that its original owner (respondent No.4 herein) had entered into an agreement for sale with him and his possession was protected under section 53‑A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, as the petitioner did not enter into possession of the property under the terms of the contract or agreement with respondent No.4 it is evident that he could not claim the protection under section 53‑A of the Act.
2. There is no force in this petition which is, accordingly dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.