Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 438 1992 SLD 438 1992 PLD 643
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No.878-L of 1991, decision dated: 1st July, 1992.
NASIM HASAN SHAH, SAAD SAOOD, JAN AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ
Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Nemo No. 2.

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ

VS

Sh: MUHAMMAD GULZAR and another

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1969)------S. 15 [as substituted by Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (IX of 1979) and further amended by Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (X111 of lJft), which was continued in force by Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXI of 1990) and Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1991) and Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act (111 of lWI)]--Second appeal---Right, of second appeal is available in cases pending before the promulgation of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (Xlll of 1990) i.e. before 6-6-1990 and where the First Appellate Court had not passed a final order (before 6=6-1W0) and if any such order had been passed, 30 days had not elapsed since the passing of the said order and the coming into force of Ordinance (XIII of 1990). Haji Muhammad Ibrahim etc. v. Mst. Surrayia-un-Nisa etc. PLD 1992 SC 637 ref. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH,. J: --The relevant facts are that respondent No.l filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.2 seeking his ejectment from Shop No.28, Sheikh Cloth Market, Rail Bazar, Faisalabad. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground that respondent No.2 had failed to pay rent from April, 1988 and that he had sublet the disputed shop to the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the respondents have become defaulters from April 1988? OPP (2) Whether the respondent No.l has sublet the property to respondent No.2? OPP (3) Whether the petitioner required the shop in question for personal use in good faith? OPP' (4) What is the exact rate per month? OPP After parties had led evidence in support of their respective stands and the matter argued before him, the Rent Controller decided Issues Nos.l to 3 against the landlord; but as regards Issue No:4 the rent was fixed at Rs:100 per month. In view pf the findings on Issues Nos.l to 3 the petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 27-2-1990. However, on the landlord's appeal, the learned appellate Court (Additional District Judge) reversed the finding on…
🔒
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