Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN versus ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE CANTT


Section 10 (xiii) Requirement of Appointment of Executive Officer The law requires that the cantonment be appointed only in charge of an officer who has been appointed executive officer and there is no scope for the appointment of any additional executive officer. Is: An additional executive officer cannot be called an executive. The officer, though, is performing some of the duties of an executive officer

1981 C L C 185

[Lahore]

Before M. S. H. Qureshi, J

HAFEEZ‑UR‑REHMAN‑Petitioner

versus

TH2 ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE CANTT.

AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents

Writ Petition No. 6603 of 1980, decided on 30th September 1980.

(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI or 1963)---

--S. 6(2) read with General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 15‑Addi tional Controller‑Appointment of‑Law permitting appointment of a person' to be Additional Controller of rents, Central Government, held, can under S. 15 of General Clauses Act make such appointment also by virtue of office of such person.

(b) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑

‑ S. 10(xiii)‑Executive Officer‑Appointment of‑Contention that law intends Cantonment to be in charge of only one officer designated as Executive Officer and no scope exists for appointment of any Additional Executive Officer‑Held: An Additional Executive Officer cannot be said to be an Executive Officer even though he may be discharging some functions of an Executive Officer.

(c) Cantonments Rests Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑

S. 10(xiii)‑‑Additional Executive Officer‑Appointment of‑Com petency of Federal Government to appoint an Additional Executive Officer, held, cannot be challenged under Cantonment Rent Restriction Act.

Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan P L D 1970 S C 98 ref.

(d) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑

‑‑ S. 22‑Eviction‑Protection froth eviction under S. 22 of Act, held, available to Government servant, in case of eviction being detrimental to public interest.

Muhammad Slddiq Butt for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Fashtd Rahint for Respondent No. 3.

Syed Iftikhar Ahmad Shah, Dy. A.‑G. under direction of Court.

Date of hearing : 24th September 1980.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
list of supreme court advocates from Kashmir lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.