1981 PLP 139 (SCMR)
MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL & BRos.-Petitioner Versus Malik MUHAMMAD TAHIR ETc. Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 139 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---S. 116-Estoppel-Tenant paying rent of disputed property to his owner for fifteen years-Held, estopped from refuting title of such owner so long as in possession of that property.-Estoppel. |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Mushtaq Hussain, J |
| Parties | MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL & BRos.-Petitioner Versus Malik MUHAMMAD TAHIR ETc. Respondent |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 139 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 139 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S. 116-Estoppel-Tenant paying rent of disputed property to his owner for fifteen years-Held, estopped from refuting title of such owner so long as in possession of that property.-Estoppel. bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Mushtaq Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 139 (SCMR) (MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL & BRos.-Petitioner Versus Malik MUHAMMAD TAHIR ETc. Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saeed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Kadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 2-11-1976, passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1978).
S. 116-Estoppel-Tenant paying rent of disputed property to his owner for fifteen years-Held, estopped from refuting title of such owner so long as in possession of that property.-[Estoppel].
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner-firm is in occupation of a plot of land bearing Khasra No. 2113, Khata No. 4311 measuring one kanal and fifteen marlas at G. T. Road, Gujranwala. The petitioner has raised construction on it. The petitioner obtained this plot on lease from the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala. The lease was extended from time to time. After more than fifteen years the petitioner discovered that the land did not belong to the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala but was the property of the Government and, therefore, declined to have the lease renewed by the Superintendent Police. The latter served a notice upon the petitioner on 6-6-1974 asking him to vacate the plot within 15 days as the lease had been granted to some other person. The petitioner approached the Member, Board of Revenue on 25-3-1975.
2. The police registered a case under section 448, P. P. C. against him.
3. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1975/73 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on the ground that the Board of Revenue was still seized of the matter.
4. The Police is then said to have removed the property of the petitioner from the factory and the petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1976, claiming, inter alia, a declaration that the Police Department had no lawful authority to interfere with the possession. This petition was dismissed in limine on 2-11-1976 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
5. The resume of facts given above clearly domonstrates that the petitioner came into possession of the land in dispute gas a tenant of the police. Irrespective of whether the Superintendent of Police was or was not the owner of the land, he was the landlord of the petitioner and the petitioner had been paying rent to him for no less than 15 years. The petitioner is, therefore, estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Act from refuting the title of the respondent to the land so long as he is in possession of that property. This petition is, therefore, on the showing of the petitioner himself, has no merit and the order of the Lahore High Court impugned before us cannot be found fault with. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.