| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1993 2021 SLD 1993 2021 PLJ 195 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P. No. 4158 of 2016, decided on 29.3.2021, Date of hearing: 24.3.2021.
TARIQ MEHMOOD, JAHANGIRI, JUSTICE.
Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Rehan Seerat, Advocate for
Respondents.
W.P. No. 4158 of 2016, decided on 29.3.2021, Date of hearing: 24.3.2021.
TARIQ MEHMOOD, JAHANGIRI, JUSTICE.
Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Rehan Seerat, Advocate for
Respondents.
GHULAM AHMAD QURESHI
VS
COMMISSIONER CDA SECTOR G11, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER
Law: Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005
Section: 2.17(1),(2),(3),(4)
Islamabad Residential Sector Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005-- ----Regln. 2.17(1), (2), (3) (4)--House was rented out for residential purposes--Lease agreement--Non-conforming uses--Violation of building by-laws--Legal notice--Ejectment petition--Accepted--vacation of house by tenant--Imposition of fine--Responsibility of--Filing of appeal dismissed--Challenge to--According to regulations owner/allottee is responsible to follow building By-laws of Capital Development Authority--In instant case tenant had left premises before 15.12.2014 and impugned order was passed on 29.09.2016 i.e. after about 2 years of vacating house by tenant, so according to law tenant cannot be held responsible by CDA for any violation after vacation of premises--It is sole responsibility of owner/allottee to rent out premises for residential purposes only, as and when any violation of building By-laws has committed by tenant, owner/allottee is bound to get premises vacated or to get violation removed by tenant but in instant case before issuance of notice by CDA, owner/allottee has not taken any action against his tenant for putting residential house to non-confirming use which reflects that said violation was carried out with consent of owner/allottee--In regulations words “owner and occupant” are mentioned, who are liable for conviction of fine etc., so both are responsible, but if tenant/occupant has vacated premises then only owner is liable for penalties--Petition was dismissed. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Jurisdiction Concurrent orders--It is well settled that Certiorari is only available to quash a decision for an error of law--It will also be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction when an inferior Court or a tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction, or fails to exercise its jurisdiction or where Court or a tribunal acts illegally in exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction and it decides a matter in violation of principle of natural justice--High Court while issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction--High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will not review…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492