Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 720 1982 SLD 720 1982 PLD 201
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 297 and 298 of,1977, decision dated: 2-03-1982.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by.1uhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record.

Sh. MAULA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER

VS

FAZAL DIN AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959-- S. 14 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11-Res judicata-Plea subsequently raised not finally adjudicated in earlier proceedings-A new cause of action, held, arose in subsequent proceed­ings and bar of general res judicata or one in provisions, of S. 14 of Ordinance (VI of 1959) not attracted.-[Res judicata]. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- S. 13 (2) (vi)-Reconstruction, requirement for-Earlier view reiterated that even on assumption that foundations of existing building could support chaubara proposed to be constructed by landlord such circumstance, by itself, would neither show unreasonableness nor lack of good faith in so far as requirement of reconstruction concerned. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD APZAL ZULLAH, J.-These two appeals by leave are directed against the judgment dated 11-2-1967 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby two second appeals filed by the landlords (appellants) arising out of the dismissal of their applications for eviction of their tenants (respondents) on the ground of reconstruction, were dismissed ; on the finding that the pro­perty in question need not be demolished for purposes of reconstruction as the intended first floor (chaubara) could be constructed on the existing founda­tions, walls and roof of the ground floor. This finding of fact purported to have been based on the statement of Syed lrshad Husain one of the appel­lants' witnesses who under cross-examination had admitted that the first floor could stand on the existing foundations of the ground floor. Leave was granted to examine the question as to whether the statement made by Irshad Husain was not misread in that he had admittedly not seen the building in question. Relying on Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqis and another 1980 S C M R 4, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants being the owners, had the right to improve their property and to utilise it in the best and most profitable manner by erecting a new building if the old one is out­dated and for that matter it need not be dilapidated and weak in structure. He has also pressed the…
🔒
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