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. 833 of 1980, decided on 29th October, 1980.
(On appeal against the order dated 3‑5‑1980 passed by the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 652 of 1979).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑
----Ss. 13 & 14‑Eviction‑Contention that order of Rent Controller being passed under S. 14 of Ordinance VI of 1959 and orders under such section being non‑appealable no appeal could be filed against such order‑held Application having been made under S. 13 of Ordi nance for ejectment of petitioner tenant and such application having been dismissed order falls under S. 13 and mere fact of S. 14 having been applied would not take it out of four corners of S. 13.
Fazle Azim Hamdani Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Inayat Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 29th October, 1980.
‑The dispute relates to certain premises situate at the Church Road, Sialkot wherein a saw mill has been installed and a timber stall is being run. Muhammad Shafi, respondent, filed an application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for the ejectment of Muhammad Bashir, petitioner, from these premises as he wanted to utilize them for his personal use as a house. This, petition was accepted in 1971 and appeal filed against it was rejected by the Additional District Judge. S. A. O. 264 of 1975 was, however, accepted on 20‑9‑1976 and the application for ejectment was rejected.
2. On 2‑2‑1977 a second application for ejectment was filed by Muhammad Shafi against Muhammad Bashir on the basis that he required the premises for starting a business. This application was rejected. On 20‑6‑1977 an appeal against this order was accepted and the case was remanded. On 31‑1‑1979 ejectment of the petitioner from the aforementioned premises was ordered. An appeal was filed against it, which was dismissed as was a second appeal on 3‑5‑1980. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The only contention raised before us is that the order of the Rent Controller was passed under section 14 and orders passed under that section are not appealable, This submission is devoid of force because the application was under section 13 for the ejectment of the petitioner and it was the application for ejectment which was dismissed wherefor the order passed fell under section 13 and the mere fact that section 14 was applied did not take it out of the four corners of the previous section.
4. This petition has no force and is, therefore, 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