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

SHAH MUHAMMAD versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE


Articles 106 and 108 Constitution of Pakistan Act, 1882 (1973), Article 199 Lease, cancellation of showcase notice is the fact that the lease was canceled due to non-payment of lease amount because the notice was not given earlier. Was. The Lease Court's downfall revealed that the notice was issued in fact, finding out the fact that the High Court denied in the constitutional jurisdiction that Wright refused to interfere with the finding of the facts of the court below. Was.

1985 C L C 2675

[Lahore]

Before Mazharul Haq, J

SHAH MUHAMMAD--Petitioner

Versus

MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE--Respondent

Writ Petition No. 10356 of 1980, decided on 7th October, 1980.

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--

---Ss. 106 & 108--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--1,case, eancellatiori of--Show-cause notice--Findings of fact---Lease cancelled due to non-payment of lease money by lessee--Contention of lessee that show-cause notice was not given before cancellation of lease--Court below had found that notice was in fact issued--Finding of fact--High Court refused in Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with finding of fact of Courts below--Writ refused in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.

ORDER

The lease has been cancelled on account of the failure of the petitioner to pay the lease money. His contention is that he was not given any show-cause notice before the lease was cancelled. In his order the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur has found that the noticeA was in fact issued. I cannot interfere with this finding of fact. Since the lease has been cancelled on account of the default emanating from the petitioner himself, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T. Writ refused.

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.