Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3037 = 1975 SLD 3037 = 1975 SCMR 99
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 46 of 197'2, decided on 17th April 1974. (On appeal from High Court, Lahore, order dated 10th May 1972, in W. P No. 488 of 1972).
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Waheeduddin Ahmad and Anwarul Haq, JJ
Malik Saeed Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate -on-record for Appellants.
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 : Ex parte. Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 3.

MUMTAZ ETC.-Appellants

VERSUS

THE DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA ETC.--Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 10

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)-Special leave to appeal granted to consider a question of general public importance but one of respondents in meantime filing writ petition in High Court for quashing proceedings before lower Tribunal and High Court staying such proceedings-Effect of interim order passed by High Court respondent=s title not currently under adjudication by lower tribunal-Petition dismissed. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)  S. 10 and West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-Whether Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 10 applicable to proceeding under Ordinance VI of 1959 [Quaere]. Date of hearing : 17th April 1974.                                                                                                                                 JUDGMENT MUMAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.----Respondent No. 3 is the transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of a shop situated in Khushab, District Sargodha. The appellants are in possession of the shop and statutory tenants under respondent No. 3. On 5-11-1971 respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the appellants on the ground of non-payment of rent in spite of service of notice under section 30 of the said Act. The transfer in favour of respondent No. 3 had been earlier challenged by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property District Committee, before the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the shop was trust property. On 4-6-1969 the Settlement Commissioner passed an order staying recovery of rent of the shop and its further transfer by respondent No. 3. In view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner and the stay order passed by him the Rent Controller did not proceed with the trial of the application for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register