Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. 11 of 1974 in Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1969, decided on 7th March 1974.

(On review from the judgment and order of this Court, dated the 19th November 1973, in Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1969).

--‑ O. XXVI read with Civil Procedure Code V of 1908).O. XLVII‑‑ Review‑Question raised already examined In judgment review and decided against petitioner‑Petitioner in fact seeking re‑hearing of appeal‑‑‑No ground for review, held, made out.‑‑ [Review].

--‑ Person, in order to be landlord of any property need not necessarily be its owner with full proprietary title‑Award acted upon by parties sari consequently relationship of landlord and tenant created between parties‑‑Finding not shown suffering from any error apparent on face of record‑‑Petition for review dismissed.

Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th March 1974.

The main ground urged by the learned counsel for reviewing our order dated the 19th November 1973, passed Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1969 is that there is an inconsistency in that order owing to the fact that on the one hand the Court has bold that the arbitration award did not create any interest or title in the property in suit in favour of the appellant. Abdul Karim, yet on the other hand the Court has found that he bad become the landlord of the property with a right to eject the petitioner. It is submitted that the effect of the non‑registration of the arbitration award, and the question of its admissibility in evidence be examined again.

The questions raised by the learned counsel have already been examined by us in the judgment under review, and decided against the petitioner means of the present application, the petitioner is, in fact, stoking re‑hearing of the appeal on the ground that the judgment already rendered In this matter is not correct. It is clear that this is not a good ground for review under the Order XXVI of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956. read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Even otherwise, the inconsistency mentioned by the learned counsel is of no avail to the petitioner. It is well settled that in order to be a landlord of any property, the person concerned need not necessarily be its owner as well with full proprietary title. The Court has found in this case that the award had been acted upon by toe parties and that consequently the relationship of landlord and tenant was created between them. This finding has not been shown to suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this review petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.