| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3146 = 1981 SLD 3146 = 1981 PLD 246 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 263 of 1981, decided on 2nd May 1981. (On petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27-1-1981 in Writ Petition No. 10545 of 1980).
Presented By: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref. Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahittad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record far Petitioners. Nemo .for
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Akram Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 2.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 263 of 1981, decided on 2nd May 1981. (On petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27-1-1981 in Writ Petition No. 10545 of 1980).
Presented By: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref. Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahittad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record far Petitioners. Nemo .for
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Akram Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 2.
MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER--Petitioners
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOHAIL ETc.--Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
Section: 13(3)(a), 15
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13 (3) (a)-Eviction of tenant--Personal requirement--Landlord owning a shop in same locality but still constrained to run his business in deorhi of his residential house-Such fact, held, shows genuine requirement of shop in dispute by landlord for his personal use. Link (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 15-Writ jurisdiction-Finality of orders passed on appeal. Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a matter-Competent to decide it rightly or wrongly-Mere fact of another conclusion being possible on evidence adduced, held, does not make it a case for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Tendency of filing writ petitions. in High Court against final orders passed by appellate Court deplored-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.-[Appeal (civil)]. Notwithstanding the fact that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has abolished the second appeal in cases under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and has made the orders of the District Judge as final, yet the parties, probably after obtaining legal advice, have taken to filing writ petition in the High Court against the final order passed by the appellate Court, merely to take another chance or to delay their eviction, hoping that the matter shall take considerable time to be disposed of or that in any case the High Court while dismissing their writ petition may be persuaded to allow further time for vacating the premises-in-question. The writ petitions are argued before the High Court as if they are Regular Second Appeals arid it is noticed that the High Court takes great pains to re-appraise the . -evidence . and to consider each and every , contention raised by the petitioner's side before deciding the petition without realising that, more often than not,, such petitions are merely a device to circumvent the amendment in the law and defeat the obvious intention of the Legislature, namely, a speedy determination of cases under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Such frivolous applications not only cause the poor litigants…