Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 696 1984 SLD 696 1984 SCMR 901
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 98-R of 1983, decision dated: 30-01-1984 (On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 2-4-1983 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petition No. 93 of 1983)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J. AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

INAYATULLAHer

VS

. RENT CONTROLLER, RAWALPINDI AND others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)------Art. 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30-Ejectment on ground of non-payment of rent-Leave to appeal against transfer of disputed property having been earlier refused, order of High Court restoring transfer in favour of respondents remaining in field-Relationship of landlord and tenant between, respondents and petitioner established and default in payment of rent admitted by petitioner-Eviction of petitioner straightaway ordered by Court - Held, unexceptionable in circumstances of case-Leave to appeal refused. Riaz Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Karam Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Zainul Abedin. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1984. ORDER MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, by which Petition No. 93 of 1983 was dismissed in limine. It appears that the petitioner was contesting his right to the transfer of a residential house comprised in evacuee property bearing No. Q/43, Chowk Imambara, Rawalpindi, but was not successful as it was transferred to Haji Shaikh Abdullah and through him to respondents Nos. 3 to 17 by reason of association deed. The appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner succeeded and the case was remanded for fresh decision. Against this order a revision was filed before the Settlement Commissioner, but as the respondents did not succeed they filed a writ petition and succeeded with the result that the remand order was set aside. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court as leave was refused to the petitioner. A review petition against this order also failed. In this background, the respondents sued to evict the petitioner. The petitioner resisted his eviction on the ground that there did not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant. In this context, it was further averred that the petitioner had not paid the rent as he did not recognised 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