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 No. 282‑R of 1985, decided on 16th October,1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑3‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 1920 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Finding of Rent Controller that landlord failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant reversed by appellate Court and case remanded for disposal on merits‑‑Contention, that finding recorded by appellate Court was based on misreading of evidence and since very question of jurisdiction for exercise of power of ejectment under Rent Ordinance depended on this finding, appellate Court was not justified in interfering with order of trial Court, requiring examination‑‑Leave granted.
Moulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Akhtar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th October, 1985.
This petition is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑3‑1985 whereby a Constitutional Petition brought by the petitioner challenging the judgment of Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, dated 20‑2‑1984 was dismissed.
2. The proceedings arose out of a rent case filed by the respondents for the ejectment of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of non payment of rent. The petitioner denied the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in her written statement whereupon an issue was framed in this behalf. The learned Rent Controller by his order, dated 19‑4‑1983 came to hold "that the respondent /applicant had failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties". The application was accordingly dismissed. However, on appeal by the respondents the finding of the trial Court was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for disposal on merits. The petitioner challenged this order in a Constitutional Petition which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded in the case by the learned Additional District Judge was clearly based on misreading of evidence and since the very question of jurisdiction for the exercise of the power of ejectment under the Rent Ordinance was depended on this finding, the learned Additional District Judge was not justified in interfering with the order of the trial Court.
4. The writ petition was dismissed on the consideration "that a finding on a question of fact recorded by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction unless it is based on no evidence or it suffers from misreading of evidence cannot be interfered within writ jurisdiction". The learned counsel then referred us to the evidence on the record and pointed out that in spite of the above observation the learned High Court refused to set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
5. The contentions raised require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,000. The stay is already granted to continue till the disposal of the appeal.
M. Y. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer