Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 579 1982 SLD 579 1982 SCMR 1014
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No 36/R of 1982, decision dated: 9-03-1982(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 3-11-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in W. P: No. 121 of 1981)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD AKBAR

VS

Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Condonation of delay-Petition for leave to appeal barred by 15 days-Grounds taken in application for condonation of delay not convincing-Petitioner unable to show having approached Copying Branch for copies of impugned but same not delivered to him in time and date of delivery of such copy changed from time to time-Impugned dealing with question of jurisdiction and holding no jurisdictional error committed in --Question whether or not petitioner's denial of relation­ship of landlord and tenant contumacious also a question on which District Judge gave good reasons for inferring petitioner's act to be contumacious-Petition, held, without merit and dismissed.-[Condo­nation of delay]. ORDER M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J -Through this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3-11-1981, in Writ Petition No. 121, of 1981. 2. The facts which led to the present petition are that Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No. 1 brought an ejectment application against the petitioner for eviction from a shop, inter alias, on the ground of bona fide personal need. He was evicted by the learned Rent Controller, and his appeal before the learned District Judge also failed. Thereafter, the validity of the ejectment order was challenged before the Lahore High Court, Rawal­pindi Bench, through judicial review. The circumstances under which the Courts ordered the eviction of the petitioner were that there exists relation­ship of landlord and tenant and the demised property belongs to the wife of respondent No. 1 and that she let out the shop to the petitioner and respondent No. 1 collected rent from him through Qazi Ijaz Ahmad. The respondent No. 1 who is an Advocate took up the stand that he managed the property of his wife and leased out the shop to the petitioner. Qazi Ijaz Ahmad was his junior who collected the rent on his behalf and paid it to him. He also accepted that the rent was earlier recovered by him through his clerk. 3. The learned Rent Controller, on evaluation of the evidence of the parties on the preliminary issue, as to whether the relationship of…
🔒
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