1984 PLP 934 (CLC)
Mirza FARZAND BEG‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 934 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | Mirza FARZAND BEG‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 934 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 934 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 934 (CLC) (Mirza FARZAND BEG‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Siddiq Butt for Petitioner.
- Walayat Hussain Haidri for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑ ‑‑ Ss. 2 (d) & 6‑Additional Executive Officer of Cantonment can be appointed as Additional Rent Controller under Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. (b) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑ ‑‑ S. 17‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9 Relationship of landlord and tenant existing‑Default in payment of rent established by concurrent findings of Tribunals below on evidence on record‑High Court, held, not to substitute its own opinion .for that of Tribunals‑Interference declined in writ jurisdiction. ‑‑ Art. 9‑Writ petition‑Writ jurisdiction, held, not akin to appellate jurisdiction nor does it amount to rehearing of entire case. JUDGMENT' This writ petition has been filed to assail the concurrent judgments and orders of the Tribunals below. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default and personal need. The plea taken by the petitioner/ tentant was that he was a mortgagee and not a tenant. The two Tribunals below have discussed the evidence on the record, which was oral in nature, and came to the conclusion that the mortgage was not established. The entry of the petitioner through the respondent/landlord was admitted. It was held that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The denial of relationship by the tenant /petitioner was, thus, held by the Tribunals below to be contumacious. For these reasons, the ejectment petition was allowed. It was also held that non payment of rent stood admitted. Therefore the ejectment could otherwise be straightaway ordered.
2. The main question for consideration of which this writ petition was admitted, stands already resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court. It has now been held that there was no defect in the appointment of an Additional Executive Officer of the Cantonment as theJA Additional Rent Controller under the Cantonments. Rent Restriction) ,Act, 1963.
3. Insofar as the challenge to decision on merits is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunals below in the exercise of my constitutional jurisdiction. The inference drawn by the Tribunals below from the evidence on the record, is such as could have been drawn by a reasonable person. The High Court itself would no substitute its opinion for that of the Tribunals below. Writ jurisdiction is not akin to appellate jurisdiction nor does it amount to rehearing the entire case. In these circumstances, I see no justification to interfere and would accordingly dismiss this writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the premises. M. Y. S. Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑- ‑‑ Art. 9‑Writ petition‑Writ jurisdiction, held, not akin to appellate jurisdiction nor does it amount to rehearing of entire case. M. Siddiq Butt for Petitioner. Walayat Hussain Haidri for Respondents. Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1983. JUDGMENT' This writ petition has been filed to assail the concurrent judgments and orders of the Tribunals below. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default and personal need. The plea taken by the petitioner/ tentant was that he was a mortgagee and not a tenant. The two Tribunals below have discussed the evidence on the record, which was oral in nature, and came to the conclusion that the mortgage was not established. The entry of the petitioner through the respondent/landlord was admitted. It was held that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The denial of relationship by the tenant /petitioner was, thus, held by the Tribunals below to be contumacious. For these reasons, the ejectment petition was allowed. It was also held that non payment of rent stood admitted. Therefore the ejectment could otherwise be straightaway ordered.
2. The main question for consideration of which this writ petition was admitted, stands already resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court. It has now been held that there was no defect in the appointment of an Additional Executive Officer of the Cantonment as theJA Additional Rent Controller under the Cantonments. Rent Restriction) ,Act, 1963.
3. Insofar as the challenge to decision on merits is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunals below in the exercise of my constitutional jurisdiction. The inference drawn by the Tribunals below from the evidence on the record, is such as could have been drawn by a reasonable person. The High Court itself would no substitute its opinion for that of the Tribunals below. Writ jurisdiction is not akin to appellate jurisdiction nor does it amount to rehearing the entire case. In these circumstances, I see no justification to interfere and would accordingly dismiss this writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the premises. M. Y. S. Petition dismissed.