Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1533 of 1980, decided on 7th March 1981.
(On appeal from order dated 7-10-1980 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 352 of 1978).
Art. 185(3) - Aggrieved person -- Petitioner challenging order made by District Judge and succeeding on petition made to High Court-Petitioner, held, cannot now be heard to complain about it particularly when net effect of order amounts to direction to appellate Authority to make further inquiry so as to enable petitioner to lead, if need be, further evidence.
Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Gul Muhammad Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Date of hearing: 7th March, 1981.
The facts giving rise to this leave petition are that respondents Mansoor Malik and Farid Malik sought eviction of the deceased tenant Sh. Ghulam Dastgir, predecessor-in- interest of respondents Mst. Iqbal Akhtar, Muhammad Amin and Mst. Kishwar Sultana, from a shop premises situated in Anarkali, Lahore, under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting the premises unauthorizedly to the petitioner, who was impleaded as a respondent before the Rent Controller. The case of the petitioner Abdul Hameed was that he was in possession of the shop in his own right as on the date of transfer of the property in favour of the landlords' predecessor, and as no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, or under section 13-A of the Rent Ordinance was given to him by the respondent- landlords, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The learned Rent Controller made the order of eviction on 29-7-1975. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of ejectment and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to decide the matter afresh, after allowing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the issues recast by the Appellate Court. This order was challenged in 1,1 second appeal before the High Court both by the petitioner and the landlords. The High Court has been pleased to set aside the order made by the learned Additional District Judge and directed him to bear the appeal afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law, on the view that the first Appellate Court was under subsection (3) of section 15 of the Ordinance not empowered to frame issues and remand the case to the Controller for fresh decision in the light of the additional evidence which the parties may produce before him.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that it is not a fit case for our interference, for the petitioner cannot be said to have any real grievance. It was the petitioner who had challenged the order made by the learned Additional District Judge and having succeeded though in terms not contended by him in the High Court, cannot now heard to complain about it. Moreover, the net effect of the order made by the A High Court is to direct the Appellate Authority to make further inquiry personally, which will enable the petitioner to lead, if need be, further evidence before the First Appellate Court.
In the circumstances, we will be justified in refusing to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, and this petition is accordingly dismissed. _
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer