Lawyers Directory Listing
صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء تک کی براہِ راست رابطہ تفصیلات حاصل کریں اور کال یا واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے موزوں قانونی ماہر سے رابطہ کر کے اپنا معاملہ پورے اعتماد کے ساتھ آگے بڑھائیں۔
Civil Petition No. 405-R of 1985, decided on 6th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1-10-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petition No. 369 of 1985).
---Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13--Ejectment--Tenants disputing title over suit property- Protracted litigation extending to some 20 years--Admitted default in payment of rent--Order directing ejectment of tenants not open to objection in- circumstances--Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th November, 1985.
-This petition for leave is directed against the order, dated 1-10-1985 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 369 of 1985, whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners challenging the orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, dated 28-7-1982 and upheld, on appeal, by the District Judge on 18-6-1985, was dismissed.
In the present proceedings we are concerned only with the proceedings for ejectment initiated under the Rent Restriction Ordinance and not any other matter.
Protracted litigation has been in progress between the parties, extending to some 20 years both before the Rent Control authorities and before the civil Courts. In the former, the question of ejectment is involved, while the question of title has been raised in the civil Courts. In the former, the respondents have been found to be the landlords of the property in dispute and this finding is now unassailable. Admittedly, the petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent since they were disputing the title of the respondents over the property. The Rent Controller and the District Judge are clearly correct in ordering their ejectment in the circumstances, and the decision to order the ejectment of the petitioners is not open to objection.
The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
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