1989SCMR91 (PLP)
SUBHANULLAH and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. RAFIA AFZAL — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR91 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | SUBHANULLAH and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. RAFIA AFZAL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR91 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR91 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR91 (PLP) (SUBHANULLAH and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. RAFIA AFZAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions).
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in all the Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 1988.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions).
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in all the Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-5-1988 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in FA.O. Nos. 21, 23, 20 & 22/88).
S. 23--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Second ejectment petition was materially different from the petition dismissed earlier--Bar contained in S.23 is not attracted--Leave refused--Tenants allowed six months' time to enable them to make alternative arrangements.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of, the above mentioned four petitions. The original records were summoned by this Court to examine the plea raised by the petitioners (tenants) that the landlord‑respondent had earlier filed an ejectment petition on the ground of re‑construction which was dismissed and the present ejectment petition, which was the second petition seeking their ejectment, was substantially on the same ground as the first one and was liable to dismissal in view of the bar contained in Section 23 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. We have examined the plans filed alongwith the two ejectment petitions and find that there is a material difference between the two; hence we do not find any force in the plea raised by the petitioners that the second application being based substantially on the same ground which was raised in the first petition and found to be untenable and second petition is liable to dismissal in view of the bar contained in Section
23. However, we feel that the petitioners would need some time to shift to another premises. Ch. Akhtar Ali, learned counsel for the respondent (landlord), who is present before us, has stated that the respondent is prepared to grant the tenants six months' time to enable them to make alternative arrangements. Accordingly the landlord will not be entitled to take out execution proceedings against the tenants until 10th of April, 1989. These petitions, with the above direction, stand disposed of. MA.K./S‑214/S Leave refused.