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. 882 of 1979, decided on 2nd April, 1983.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15th September, 1979 passed in S. A. O. No. 516/79).
---Art. 185(3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑‑Premises when leased out was open plot‑Lease deed for lease of open site clearly indicating that superstructure for oil mill to be raised by tenant was to be removed after expiry of lease period‑Held, no industrial concern but open site was leased out in circumstances‑Leave to appeal refused.
Qazi Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1983.
The petitioners seek leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑9‑1979, dismissing their S. A. O. in a rent matter.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Bashir Ahmad respondent bad leased out a plot of land to Ch. Muhammad Bashir respondent No. 2 and Habibur Rahman, respondent No. 3, on 11‑12‑1958 through a registered Lease Deed for a period of 15 years for installing an oil mill' thereon. The leased period expired in 1973. In the meanwhile the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had sublet the premises to Muhammad Umar (petitioner herein). The landlord filed an ejectment petition on 2‑1‑1975 on the ground of default in payment of rent The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition vide his, order, dated. 10‑7‑1976 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, because according to him the premises being a mill' the matter did not fall within the ambit of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The landlord filed an appeal which was accepted. Muhammad Umar thereafter filed an S. A. ‑O., before the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition. .
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.
The petitioner (tenant) raised the same contentions relating .to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in relation to the property in question as raised by him before the High Court which were repelled (by the High Court) with the following observation :.‑.
"I am afraid, this contention has no force in the given circumstances. At the time when the premises had been leased out it was open site which was subject‑matter of the lease deed. No industrial concern as such was leased out. Further, the lease deed itself indicates that super‑structure to be raised by the appellant was to be removed after the expiry of the lease period. It means that open site actually was the premises which were leased out. In the circumstances the view taken by learned District Judge, in the given circumstances of the case appears to be correct."
The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that it has been clearly stated in the Lease Deed that only the plot in question was leased out and not any industrial concern. It is also stated therein that on the expiry of the, lease, the super‑structure was to be removed. As we such are In respectful agreement with the observation of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit.
M. Z. M.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer