| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3029 = 2001 SLD 3029 = 2001 YLR 155 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001, decided on 28th May, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 10‑11‑2000 in Writ Petition No.64 of 2000).
Presented By: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, J
M. Riaz Tabassum, Advocate for Appellants. Liaquat Ali Khan, Advocate for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001, decided on 28th May, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 10‑11‑2000 in Writ Petition No.64 of 2000).
Presented By: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, J
M. Riaz Tabassum, Advocate for Appellants. Liaquat Ali Khan, Advocate for
Respondents.
JAWAD LIAQAT and 5 others‑‑‑Appellants
VERSUS
Haji MUHAMMAD LAL and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986
Section: 14(2)(iv)
Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
Section: 44, 42
(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986 S. 14(2) (vi) ‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44‑‑‑Reconstruction of premises ‑‑‑Non framing of issue ‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Ejectment application filed by the landlord was accepted both by Rent Controller and Appellate Court below without framing issue with regard to bona fides of ejectment application‑‑‑Tenants at the time of framing issues did not raise any objection before the Rent Controller for recasting of the issues and did not take such plea in appeal‑‑‑Tenants also failed to take the plea that they were prejudiced by not framing the issue with regard to bona fides of application for ejectment filed by the landlord even before the High Court in the writ petition‑‑‑Tenants despite being alive to the vital point, having failed to raise plea in that respect before Rent Controller and Appellate Court below, it was also too late for the tenants to raise such plea while arguing the case before High Court that the tenants had been seriously prejudiced 6y non framing of the issue‑‑‑High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction was not vested with the power to sit as a Court of appeal against the judgments of the Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction, moreso when the provisions of C. P. C. had no application to the proceedings of such cases‑‑‑Contention of tenants was repelled‑.in circumstances. Haji Muhammad Ayub v. Syed Buzurag Shah and others PLD 1983 Pesh. 67; Hanif and others v. Malik Ahmed Shah and another 2001 SCMR 577; Badar & Brothers v. Muhammad Aslam and 2 others PLD 1977 Pesh. 80; Dr. Hassan v. Additional District Judge 1983 CLC 2446; Aziz Begum v. Guarantee Life and Employment Insurance, Lahore PLD 1975 Lah. 594 and Ghulam Nabi v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1980 SC 206 ref. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986 S. 14(2)(vi)‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant on ground of reconstruction of premises‑‑‑Facts to be pressed by landlord‑‑‑Landlord had to prove that premises was reasonably and in good faith required for reconstruction; and that the Authority concerned had granted sanction for…