| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLD 715 = 1992 CLC 78 |
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal from Order No.42 of 1991, heard on 14th October, 1991.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Muhammad Sadiq and another v. IA. Khan 1991 M L D 1205 distinguished. Nisar Ahmad Butt for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Tufail for
Respondents.
Second Appeal from Order No.42 of 1991, heard on 14th October, 1991.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Muhammad Sadiq and another v. IA. Khan 1991 M L D 1205 distinguished. Nisar Ahmad Butt for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Tufail for
Respondents.
Sh. JAN MUHAMMAD---Appellant
VERSUS
Mst. RABIA BEGUM and 7 others---Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.
Section: 13 , 15(6)
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-- ----S.13---Relationship of landlord and tenant---Tenant in his written statement accepting relationship of landlord and tenant but denying the same in the course of proceedings---Effect---Non-framing of issue inconsequential-- Tenant having admitted relationship of landlord and tenant and having paid rent, was estopped and precluded to deny title of landlord---No element of fraud having been established in the title of landlord and tenant having admitted the same in his written statement and by depositing rent, framing of separate issue on the point of relationship of landlord and tenant and its omission was not fatal to the ultimate decision---No prejudice was shown to have been caused to tenant by non-framing of such issue. West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-- ----S. 15---Ejectment of tenant---Personal need of shop in question by landlord---Finding of fact by Courts below that one of the landlords required shop in question, for his personal need, was not susceptible to a further review---Such finding did not suffer from error of non-reading or misreading of record----There being no fallacy in the appraisement of evidence, interference with same was declined. Appeal (civil)--- ----Right of appeal---Exception---Institution of a lis carried with it implication that right of appeal then in force was preserved to the parties till the rest of the career of the lis; except when by a competent enactment, such right was taken away either expressly or impliedly retrospectively and; when right of appeal would be lost when the Court or Tribunal to which appeal then lay i.e. at the commencement of the lis was subsequently abolished altogether without a substitute. Appeal…