| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1497 2001 SLD 1497 2001 SCMR 1409 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.904 of 1999, decision dated: 28-11-2000
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Malik Muhammad Jehanzeb Khan Tamman, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
Respondents. Ex parte
Civil Appeal No.904 of 1999, decision dated: 28-11-2000
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Malik Muhammad Jehanzeb Khan Tamman, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
Respondents. Ex parte
Dr. SABIR ZAMIR SIDDIQUI and 6 others
VS
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and another
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S.13Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 18Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Ejectment of tenantExecution petitionDismissal of execution petition as timebarredConcealing of facts by tenant---Contentions of the landlord were that the deceased predecessor of the landlord was suffering; from paralysis and became bedridden and could not pursue the litigation; that when the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the tenant fraudulently concealed that fact from the deceased that the tenant had been continuously depositing the rent in the Court as ordered by the interim order of the Supreme Court, in order to further give impression to the deceased landlord that the stay order was still operative in order to prevent the deceased from seeking execution of the ejectment order within period of limitation and these averments were made it: the affidavit appended with writ petition as also in reply to the objection petition before Rent Controller; that the landlords were entitled to the benefit of S.18.of the Limitation Act, 1908 and that such aspects of the case had not been considered by the High CourtValidityJudgment of the High Court showed that no notice was taken of the contentions and as such, the application of the "law was not correctly made and had the same been considered the execution petition would not have been dismissed as barred by timeLeave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contentions raised by the landlords. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S.13Limitation. Act (IX of 1908), S. 18Ejectment of tenantExecution petition, . dismissal as timebarredConcealing of facts by tenantsTenants filed petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Court arid the same was refusedTenants had all along been depositing the rent to give an impression that the stay order was still operative and as such actively --actively concealed of dismissal of the petition from the landlordsApplication for execution, in circumstances, could not legally be termed as timebarredJudgments of the Courts below were set aside and Supreme Court directed…
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