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 Special Leave to Appeal No. 698 of 1979, heard on 5th March, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, dated 30‑4‑1979 in R.S.A. No. 366 of 1979).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 145 Occupation of rented shop‑‑Petitioner claiming possession on basis of partnership in business‑‑Proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C. having gone upto High Court, petitioner's plea that he was statutory tenant of said shop, repelled‑‑No reason available to interfere with finding recorded by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th March, 1986.
‑‑Dispute between the parties relates to a shop in Surjit Building, MecLeod Road, Lahore. This building was auctioned as a 'big mansion' to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 namely Riazur Rahman Sharif and Mustafa Haider Naqvi and others who had originally been impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had entered into a partnership with respondent No. 2 Dildar Muhammad Beg in respect of the business to be conducted in the shop. The deed of partnership provided that the petitioner alone would be regarded as being in occupation of the shop. However, on 17‑7‑1965 respondent No. 2 is alleged to have forcibly occupied the shop after breaking its lock. The petitioner filed proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. which went upto the High Court.
3. Main contention of the learned counsel in this petition is that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 namely Riazur Rahman Sharif and Mustafa Haider Naqvi had, in fact, rented out the shop to respondent No. 1 Chiragh Din. It was also contended that the petitioner was a statutory tenant of the shop in dispute; that respondent No. 1 had absolutely no right to occupy the shop in question.
4. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and find no force in them. We find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned High Court Court Judge in the impugned order. Leave refused. Petition is, consequently, 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