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‑I‑75 in S. A. O. No. 308 of 1974).
‑‑‑ S. 13(2)‑‑High Court holding service of notice on statutory tenant having not been proved before Rent Controller case could not have been proceeded with at all and other respondents having claimed to be not sublettees and Rent Controller having accepted such claim, proceedings could not proceed against sub‑tenants‑Both questions pertaining to realm of facts, interference declined‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
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 grounds that Muhammad Din had defaulted in payment of rent and bad 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 respondents on 1‑4‑74. The respondents filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The respondents then filed a second appeal which was accepted by the Lahore (sigh Court on 31‑1‑75. 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 proceeded with at all. Secondly the other respondents having claimed that the house was never sublet to them by Muhammad Din, a proposition which, having found favour with the learned Rent Controller, they could no have been proceeded against as sub‑tenants.
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