Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 209 1981 SLD 209 1981 SCMR 221
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 929 of 1980,1 decided on 21st July, 1980.(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court. Lahore dated 21-5-1980 in S. A. O. No. 238/77)
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ
Khalilur Rahman Khan, Advocate with M. A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Nazir, Advocate Supreme Court with Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD LATIF

VS

MAHMIJD ALI

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--S. 13-Reference to earlier evidence-Rent Controller, held, not precluded from referring to evidence brought on record earlier for recording a finding irrespective of fact whether evidence related to preliminary issue or to issues framed subsequent to decision of preliminary issue.-[Evidence]. ORDER SHAFI-UR-REHINIAN, J.-The petitioner, a tenant of the shop, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 21-5-1980 whereby his second appeal against ejectment order was dismissed. 2. The respondent claiming himself to be a landlord of the petitioner sought his eviction on the grounds that the rent had not been paid and the property was required for his personal use. He claimed the petitioner to be a tenant in the property since 14-I1-1969. In resisting the claim the petitioner claimed that he was in possession of the property under an agreement to sell under which he had advanced a sum of Rs. 8,000 and bad been placed in its possession. The other grounds taken up by the landlord were also challenged. In the first round of litigation the only issue framed was with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. It was held that such a relationship existed and the petitioner was a tenant of the property since 14-11-1969. Thereafter two additional issues with regard to default and the personal need of the landlord were framed and eviction of the petitioner ordered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up two grounds for challenging the judgment impugned by this petition. It has been urged that his request seeking the personal appearance of the landlord with a view to obtain his signatures for getting it compared with the signatures on the agreement to sell was wrongfully denied while the Rent Controller was seized of the proceedings on the issues on merit. Secondly, it is contended that in the matter of default and personal need the Courts were in error in relying upon or referring to the evidence which had been recorded on the preliminary issue with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. 4. The specific issue with regard…
🔒
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