Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 799 to 803 of 1982, decided on 11th November, 1985.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Admission‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that District Judge as well as High Court had wrongly refused to rely on admission made by respondents before trial Court.

Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid sHussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985.

‑‑This order will dispose of 5 petitions as all of them have been filed by the same person and also involved same question.

The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioner filed 5 separate applications for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1969. The learned trial Court ordered the eviction of the respondents but on appeal the learned District Judge set aside the order/decree inter alia on the ground, that now evidence has been adduced to show that the premises in possession of the respondents were apart of the property transferred to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to another statement made by the respondents before the learned trial Court admitting that they were in occupation of the premises in question and submitted that the learned District Judge as well as the High court has wrongly refused to rely on this admission on part of the respondents.

We are of the view that the question needs consideration Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.

Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 in each case. Full record shall be prepared by the petitioner at his expenses. Since the matter involves a very short point the same may be filed for hearing on the 19th of this month.

M.I. Leave granted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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