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

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM versus NASIR BEG


Article 185 (3) of the West Pakistan Citizen Rent Ordinance (VI of 1959), section 13 (3) (a) excludes the landlord's personal requirement that the order be reversed in the writ petition, even though the circumstances I wasn't worth it, but it was strengthened. After discussing all the points in detail, the reasons which do not constitute a good cause for interference, refuse to appeal by the Supreme Court.

1985 S C M R 652

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ

Ch MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner

versus

NASIR BEG and 4 others‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 140 of 1982, decided on 13th March, 1982.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 16‑11‑1981, passed in Writ Petition No. 748 of 1980).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (3) (a)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Bona fide personal requirement of landlord proved‑‑Order impugned in writ petition which, though not competent in circumstances, was dismissed with cogent reasons after discussing in detail all points raised‑‑No good ground having been made out for interference, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Date of hearing: 13th March, 1982.

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J

.‑‑ This petition by Muhammad Ibrahim is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 16‑11‑1981, whereby his writ petition in a rent matter was dismissed.

2. The respondents‑landlord had filed an application for ejectment against him, inter alia, on the ground of/ default and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller as well 9s the learned appellate Court found that the bona fide requirement stood proved. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition, which too was dismissed, vide the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first place we are of the view that, in the circumstances of this case, petitioner's writ petition was not even competent. Moreover we notice that the learned Judge in Chamber has discussed all the points raised before him in detail and has given cogent reasons for dismissing the writ petition. No good ground for interference has been made out. The petition is consequently dismissed.

M. I. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous lower court advocate from Lahore lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.