Law:

Section:

Ejectment petition---¬Respondent claimed not to be in possession of premises having collapsed before filing of ejectment petition---¬Ejectment order passed by Rent Controller upheld by Additional District Judge and High Court---Validity---¬Supreme Court granted leave to consider questions as to whether principles of frustration of contract contained in S. 56 of Contract Act, 1872 had been correctly applied to facts of the present case by High Court and Additional District Judge; whether ejectment petition seeking ejectment of respondent from collapsed premises was competent before Rent Controller particularly when he was not in physical possession thereof; and if respondent was not in physical possession of premises at time of filing of ejectment petition and if ejectment petition in such situation was not competent before Rent Controller, then whether dispute between parties was not confined only to recovery of some outstanding dues by petitioner from respondent over which dispute Rent Controller had no jurisdiction and for resolution thereof only civil court could have been approached by petitioner. Mahmood A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th May, 2011. ORDER ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of this case with his assistance leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider the following questions:-- (1) Have the principles of frustration of contract contained in section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 been correctly…

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