PLC
1986
Revision No. LHR‑285 of 1985, decided on 12th October, 1985.
Malik RIAZ AHMAD Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
PTD
1996
W.TA. No. 1792/KB of 1986-87, decided on 27th March, 1995.
N/A
Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PLD
1978
Civil Original No. 23 of 1978, decided on 10th June, 1978.
Before Aftab Hussain, J Versus LAHORE RACE CLUB AND 4 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: S. 76(1)-Expression "Annual General Meeting" - Expression whenever used does not necessarily mean meeting held within one calendar year but includes meeting held within 15 months of last preceding Annual General Meeting-Stewards and Chairman, held, can hold their offices even after expiry of one calendar year but their tenure of office cannot extend beyond period of 15 months from date of last preceding meeting.-Words and phrases.
PLD
1986
Civil Revision No. 192/1) of 1986, heard on 6th May, 1986.
ISLAMABAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, ISLAMABAD‑Petitioner Versus RAWALPINDI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, RAWALPINDI‑Respondent
Court:
PTD
2000
Tax Case No.33 of 1984, decided on 29th April, 1997.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus T. P. S. H. SOKKALAL
Court: 236 I T R 981
CLC
1995
Notification No. F. 20(1)/94‑Law (Petition under Article 218 of the Constitution), decided on 9th March, 1995.
Dr. NAILA REHMAN CHEEMA‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Cabinet Division Islamabad and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Election Commission of Pakistan
CLC
1980
Petition No. 725 of 1976, decided on 26th September, 1979.
HAJI MUHAMMAD -Petitioner Versus OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY II.. FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: Karachi
PTD
1985
Income‑tax Reference Application No. 99 of 1973, decided on 10th October, 1984.
Messrs GRINDLAYS BANK Ltd. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Court: Karachi High Court
PTD
1996
Lease of immovable property implies transfer of right to enjoy such property for a certain time or in perpetuity in consideration of a price paid or promised or of money, service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee. Thus, mere occupation of a property by a person, owned by another does not create relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. A mere user of an immovable property cannot be held to be a tenant until and unless there is an agreement express or implied between the parties creating a relationship of landlord and tenant. The decisive consideration is the intention of parties and if any agreement has been executed in this behalf it has to be ascertained on a consideration of all the relevant provisions in the agreement and in the absence of a formal document the intention of the parties must be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the parties. All, the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties have to be borne in mind for ascertaining the real relationship between the parties. In the present case no agreement had been executed between the owner of the properties and the occupant of the properties under consideration and, therefore, the question if any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and whether the occupation of properties amounted to letting out or business of letting out of the property to be decided on the attending circumstances. For this purpose one has to revert to the definition of lease as contained in section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act according to which the lease of immovable property is transfer of a right to enjoy such property in consideration of a price paid or promised or of money, service or any other thing of value. Thus, if there is mere transfer of a right to enjoy an immovable property but there is no price, premium, money, service or, other thing to be so rendered as called the rent the transaction shall not be treated as lease.
N/A
Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PTD
1964
Tax Case No. 109 of 1960, decided on 22nd October 1962.
THIAGESAR DHARMA VANIKAM Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, MADRAS
Court: Madras (India)
