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

BASHIR AHMED versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR TAHIR


Section 13 reads with the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), arguing that Section 30 was excluded, that the courts below did not appreciate the effect of the respondents' earlier statement that the applicants did not. The disputed property is seized as corruption and cannot be considered a legal tenant. Pursuant to Section 30 of the Act, neither property nor property is disputed in the dispute for consideration in the circumstances.

1982C 165

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Ilyas, J

Haji BASHI R AHMAD AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners

Versus

MUHAMMAD NAZIR TAHIR AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents

Writ Petition No. 981 of 1981, decided on 22nd February, 1981.

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑

.‑‑ S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Eviction‑Contention that Courts below had not appreciated effect of respondent's previous statement that petitioners occupied disputed property as trespassers and could not be treated as statutory tenants in pursuance of S. 30 of Act, property in dispute being neither a house nor a shop‑Matter admitted for consideration, in circumstances.

Akhtar Mir Warsi for Petitioners.

Date of hearing: 22nd February 1981.

ORDER

Learned counsel inter alia contends that the two tribunals below had no duly appreciated the effect of the previous statements of respondents Nos. and 4 that the petitioners were occupying the disputed property as trespassers; and that the petitioners could not be treated as statutory tenants in pursuance of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act. 1958 because the property in dispute was. neither a house nor a shop.

2. Admit. Notice.

3. The operation of the impugned order shall remain, suspended meanwhile subject to notice.

4. In view of the nature of this case it shall be heard within six months.

M. Y. M. Case admitted.

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
criminal advocate from Choa Saiden Shah 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.