Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 265 1977 SLD 265 1977 PLD 442
Supreme Court of Pakistan

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., QAISER KHAN AND MUHAMMAD HALEEM, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ABDUL AZIZ AND another

VS

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- S. 13(3)(a)(ii) (b) -Eviction of tenant-Landlord's requirement Words and phrases-Expression "any other such building" in sub-cl. (ii)(b)-Word "building" in expression-Means building owned by landlord-Requirement of subsection 3(a)(it)(b)-Held: Does not extend to cover rented premises.-[Words and phrases]. In the introductory pact of clause (ii) the word 'non-residential building' can have no other meaning except that which is owned by the landlord for it is in respect of that building that he is required to make an application for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession in terms of clause (a) of section 13 (3) of the Ordinance. In sub-clause (b) the word 'building' occurs twice and each time it is pre-fixed by the word 'such'. Considering its implication that it refers generally and naturally to its last antecedent the use of this word is with a definite purpose, t. e. to identify the ownership of the building with that before mentioned in the introductory part of clause (ii). In this connection reference may be made to the rule as to how the word 'such' should be construed as stated by Maxwell: "Where the word 'such' occurs in a section it must not be ignored, but must be read as referring back to the preceding provisions, even though this gives rise to a result which appears anomalous." The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the word 'building' can have no other meaning except that which is owned by the landlord. This is in accord with the rule of construction i. e , to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed. Accordingly the requirement in this sub-clause does not extend to coven the rented promises. Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn., p. 30 and Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Pervez 1976 S C M R 52 ref. S. Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Noor Ahmad Noorl, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent. Date of hearing t 17th March 1977. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-This appeal is by special leave against the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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