Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 1520 1981 SLD 1520 1981 PLD 615
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 110 of 1978, decided on 21st February, 1978.
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry for
Respondent

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE--Appellant

VS

DARKAT ALI--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)- S. 106-Notice of termination of tenancy of factory--Act not in terms applicable to Province of Punjab--Filing of suit by landlord--Held, satisfies requirement of principle involved in S. 106 especially if tenant's ejectment ordered after expiry of six months of institution of suit-Non-service of six months' notice before filing of suit would be of no consequence in such circumstances-Notice served by landlord before institution of suit and six months' period expiring during pendency of suit-Held, landlord cannot be non-suited for reason that he had sued tenant within six months of service of notice of termination on him.-CG. A. Jaffery v. Karachi Port Trust P L D 1962 Kar. 32 dissented from]. Barkatullah v. Abdul Hamid P L D 1980 Lab. 548; Syed Mukhtar Ali and another v. Ghulam Rasool Chaudhary and 2 others P L D 1980 Lab. 623; Abdullah Bhai and others v. Ahmad Din P L D 1964 S C 106; Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir P L D 1978 S C 220; Raja Muhammad and 11 others v. Haj Mohammad Zareen and 3 others 1980 S C M R 339; Manzoor Ahmad Khan v. Syed Magsood Ali P L D 1975 Lah. 1521; Muhammad Ashraf and 6 others v. Muhammad Abdullah Khan P L D 1981 Lab. 33 ; Maulvi Faiz Bakhsh v. Syed Shadi Shah P L D 1556 261 and Karam Chand v. Amar Nath Mohsan A I R 1933 Lab. 377 ref. G. A. Jaffery v. Karachi Port Trust P L D 1962 Kar. 32 dissented from. Sh. Bashir Ahmad v. Nisar Ahmed and another P L D 1980 Lab. 302 distinguished. JUDGMENT The facts giving rise to this regular second appeal are that the respondent, Barkat Ali, instituted a suit against the appellant. Muhammad Siddiq, for recovery of Rs. 280 as arrears of rent for certain premises let out to him and for his ejectment from those premises. The suit was resisted by the appellant on various grounds. Resultantly, following issues were framed by a Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit;-- (1) Whether the defendant paid or tendered the rent to the plaintiff upto June, 1973 ? O. P. D. (2) Whether the suit property is a Factory? O. P. D. (3) Whether the plaintiff requires the property in dispute for his personal use? O. P. P. (4) Whether the defendant made certain…
🔒
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