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. 361 of 1982, decided on 23rd August, 1984.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑3‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 7251 of 1980).
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement of landlady‑‑Challenged in Constitutional petition‑ High Court considering case concluded by findings of fact‑‑Not amenable to interference‑‑Refusal to exercise discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, held, unexceptionable‑‑Leave to, appeal refused.
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9‑ Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑Case concluded by findings of fact‑‑High Court refusal to exercise discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, held, unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd August, 1984.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 22nd March 1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition filed by a tenant, arising out of orders of his* ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent .and personal requirement of the respondent landlady, was dismissed.
Although the learned Judge in the High Court dealt with the question of law whether or not a Constitutional writ petition would be a proper remedy in cases like the present one, he considered the case as one concluded by findings of fact.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the plea of misreading/non‑reading of the record, has not been properly considered by the High Court.
After hearing the learned counsel we do not find it a fit case for interference with the findings of fact. Refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is unexceptionable, This petition accordingly is dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer