Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 9/P of 1986, decided‑on 22nd January, 1986. .
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 1‑12‑1985 in W.P. No. 264 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) read with PATA Regulation, 1975‑‑Jurisdiction of Rent Controller‑‑ Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia points that in presence of PATH Regulation. 1975, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction under Ordinance (VI of 1959); that Ordinance (VI of 1959) ceased to have any effect after promulgation of PATA Regulation, particularly so when said Ordinance had not been in force by that date, and that mere appointment of Controller, issuance of Notification regarding area within tribal areas of Swat to which Ordinance was made applicable after 1975 Regulation have no effect.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted as leave was granted on similar points raised in other petitions‑‑Orders issued to be heard together on present record at an early date.
Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1986.
Leave is sought on the ground that in the presence of the PATA Regulation, 1975 the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; that this Ordinance ceased to have any effect after the promulgation of the PATA Regulation particularly so when the said Ordinance had not been in force by that date; that mere appointment of Controller issuance of Notification regarding the area within the tribal areas of Swat to which the Ordinance was made applicable after' the 1975 Regulation have no effect. Similar point was raised in Civil Petition No.9/P/84 and Civil Appeals Nos. 38/P and 39/P of 1984. We grant leave to consider inter alia the points raised. Security rupees two thousand and five hundred only. To be heard on the present record at an early date, alongwith C.P. 9/P/84 and C.As 38/P and 39/P of 1984. Stay as in Rehmani Gulls case C.A. 54 of 1984.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer