Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Dismissal of ejectment petition meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Dismissal of ejectment petition

Dismissal of ejectment petition legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2016 CLC 1832 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 10Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Agreement to sell after execution of tenancy agreementEffectSuit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sellDismissal of ejectment petitionGrounds

Agreement to sell or any other agreement entered into between the landlord and the tenant, after execution of a tenancy agreement, in respect of premises and for a matter other than a matter provided under the tenancy agreement, shall not affect the relationship of landlord and tenant unless the tenancy was revoked through a written agreement entered before the Rent Registrar in accordance with the provisions of S.5 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

In the present case, the agreement to sell was executed on 05.06.2012, whereas the lease agreement was dated 28.02.2012

Agreement to sell would have no effect upon the ejectment petition and the tenancy was to be regulated by the terms of lease agreement

Pendency of a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell of the rented premises executed during pendency of tenancy was not a sufficient ground to dismiss the ejectment petition

Leave to defend filed by the tenant was also dismissed which disclosed that tenant failed to prove its case before the Trial Court

Ejectment order passed by the Trial Court was upheld

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Dismissal of ejectment petition", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124957758

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Dismissal of ejectment petition"

CLC 2012
N/A

2012 C L C 562

ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus CIVIL JUDGE IST CLASS-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, MULTAN and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
MLD 1986
First Appeal from Original Order No. 11 of 1985, decided on 30th April, 1986.

1986 M L D 2506

SALEHA AKHTAR and others — Appellants Versus SALAH-UD-DIN and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLC 2007
2007-March-27

2007L347

GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus REHMAN BAIG and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
MLD 2005
2005-April-11

2005 M L D 1287

INFOLOGIX (PVT.) LTD. through Chairman — Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ GHAFOOR KHAN and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 2005
Civil Review Petition No.142 of 2004, decided on 19th April, 2005.

2005 S C M R 1200

Sheikh ANJUM IQBAL — Petitioner Versus SHER AFGAN — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
MLD 1986
First Rent Appeal No.659 of 1981, decided on 17th March, 1985.

1986 M L D 2510

MUHAMMAD JI‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
SCMR 2004
Civil Petition No 346-P of 2002, decided on 8th October, 2002.

2004 S C M R 1607

MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus Syed SOHAIL WAJID GILLANI — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
YLR 2009
----S. 8---Suit for possession---Trial Court decreed suit, but Appellate Court below allowing appeal filed by defendant, set aside judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit---Plot in dispute was duly transferred to the plaintiff and evidence on record had fully established that plaintiff was the owner of the plot in question---Civil matters are adjudicated and decided on preponderance of documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties; on that principle, the evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly outweighed the evidence produced by the defendant---Rule that under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 every document over the value of Rs.100 was required to be registered, was not absolute while establishing ownership---In the present case convincing evidence on record could not be brushed aside on that ground alone---Non adherence to registration was to be visited with a penalty, but it could not be used as a weapon to snatch lawful ownership of other party---Plaintiff having fully been proved to be owner of the plot in question, was entitled to hold the possession of the same---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored.

2009 Y L R 108

NAWAZISH ALI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHUDA YAR ASKARI through legal heirs — Respondent

Court: Lahore
MLD 1985
Writ Petition No. 1304 of 1983, decided on 6th March, 1984.

1985 M L D 1627

Messrs I SONS CORPORATION — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ CHEEMA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1985
Civil Petition No.394 of 1984, decided on 26th May, 1984.

1985 S C M R 814

MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD RASHID and others‑‑Respondents

Court: High Court

Dictionary Search

Advertisement

Explore Legal Library

Pakistan Law Portal is an advanced digital repository of legal precedents, statutes, and judicial terms. Utilize citation search or keywords to discover relevant case law.

Back to Library