| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 287 1982 SLD 287 1982 SCMR 367 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 121-R of 1980, decision dated: 12-10-1980.(On appeal- from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 15-6-1980 in S. A. O. 38 of 1980)
DORAB PATEL AND ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, JJ
Qazi Abdul Rashid, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 121-R of 1980, decision dated: 12-10-1980.(On appeal- from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 15-6-1980 in S. A. O. 38 of 1980)
DORAB PATEL AND ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, JJ
Qazi Abdul Rashid, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
JAN MUHAMMAD
VS
Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---S. 13 read with Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 51 Equity-Improvements not made with landlord's permission-Tenant not entitled to compensation therefore-Contention that improvements having been made with knowledge of landlord, petitioner tenant's case fell under equity of S. 51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, held, not correct-Equity conferred by S. 51-Not available to tenant and limited to a person believing himself to be absolutely entitled to property subject-matter of improvement. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J.-The respondent is the 'owner of the shop occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner was using the shop for running his business as a barber, and, had, therefore, made improvements on the property, details of which are given in paragraph 2 of the petition for leave. However, in the events that happened, the respondent filed an eviction case against the petitioner on the ground that she needed the demised' premises for the use of her son. Eviction has been ordered by all the Courts below and Mr. Rashid does not challenge the order of eviction. However, even before the Rent Controller, whilst challenging his eviction, the petitioner had made a claim of compensation for the improvements made by him in the shop in the event of being evicted. This claim too was rejected by the Courts below and in dismissing this claim in the. High Court, the learned Judge observed in his order of 15-6-1980 : "Since the improvements are not stated to have been made with the express consent of the landlord and because they are not improvements which would enhance the value of the premises the appellant is not entitled to compensation therefor." Mr. Rashid is aggrieved only by these observations and seeks leave to examine the question whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for the…
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