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. 335 of 1975, decided on 27th October, 1980.
(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31‑1‑1985 in S. A. O. No. 308; 74).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑‑Questions pertaining to realms or facts‑Not liable to interference in proceedings for leave to appeal before Supreme Court ‑[Question of fact].
Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent
Date of hearing: 27th October 1980.
.‑‑The petitioners are successors‑in‑interest of Hashmat Ali deceased, the transferee of the property in dispute. One Muhammad Din was its occupant since 1948,
2. The petition for ejectment was filed against Muhammad Din and the other respondents on the ground that Muhammad Din had defaulted in payment of rent and had inducted the other respondents into the house as sub‑tenants. Muhammad Din did not contest the application. The other respondents did. The other respondents claim to be in occupation of the house in their own rights.
3. The Rent Controller passed an ejectment order against the said respondent on 1‑4‑1974. The respondent filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The respondent then filed a second appeal which was accepted by the Lahore High Court on 31‑1‑1975. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
4. The judgment of the learned High Court is based on the finding that the service of notice on Muhammad Din, the statutory tenant, not having been proved before the Rent Controller, the case could not have been pro ceeded with at all. Secondly the other respondents having claimed that the house was never sublet to them and Muhammad Din having found favour with the learned Rent Controller, they could not have been proceeded against as sub‑tenant.
5. Both these questions pertain to the realm of fact and it is not for this Court to interfere in it. Leave is, therefore, refused and the petition is 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