1981 PLP 1719 (CLC)
PHOOL MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus S. HASSAN ARIF FATMI AND 4 OTHERS — ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1719 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PHOOL MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus S. HASSAN ARIF FATMI AND 4 OTHERS — ‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1719 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1719 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1719 (CLC) (PHOOL MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus S. HASSAN ARIF FATMI AND 4 OTHERS — ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hakim Ali Siddiqui for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ S. 30 read with evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑Repeal‑Effect‑Act XXVIII of 1958 having been repealed by Act XI V of 1975 with effect from 28th January 1975, no notice under S. 30, Act XXVIII of 1958. held, required to be given after such date and relationship between parties could not be regulated by S 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958. ‑[Inter pretation of statutes).
Judgment & Decree
‑ S. 30 read with evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑Repeal‑Effect‑Act XXVIII of 1958 having been repealed by Act XI V of 1975 with effect from 28th January 1975, no notice under S. 30, Act XXVIII of 1958. held, required to be given after such date and relationship between parties could not be regulated by S 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958. ‑[Inter pretation of statutes). (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent , Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑Ss. 13 & IS‑Concurrent findings of fact‑High Court's jurisdiction to interfere‑Both Courts below holding respondent guilty of default‑Such finding cannot be said to be a finding purely on a ques tion of fact‑Appellants proved to have been depositing rent and event continuing to deposit same after second ejectment application filed against them‑‑‑‑ Determination of question whether default committed by tenant within meaning of S. 13 of Ordinance in circumstances relates to interpretation of such section and. such question a mixed question of law and fact‑Controversy not requiring determination of facts but involving interpretation of law only, High Court, held, competent to interfere with concurrent findings of lower Courts. (Finding of fact). Ghulam Muhammad Lundkhor v. Safdor 411 P L D 1967 S C 530 ref. (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑S. 13‑Default in payment of rent‑Landlords demanding rent @ Rs. 20 p.m. instead of Rs. 5 p.m. ordered by Rent Controller in previous proceedings to be deposited in Court‑Appellant‑tenant apprehending dispute on quantum of rent bona fide continuing to deposit‑ rent with Controller‑‑Tenant, held, committed no default in circumstances. Hasan Mahmood Baig for Appellant. Hakim Ali Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th January, 1981.