Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHURSHID AHMAD VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, RAHIMYAR KHANHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1250
1988 S C M R 1250
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
KHURSHID AHMAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, RAHIMYAR KHAN and 5 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.793 of 1985, decided on 11th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18‑5‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in Writ Petition No.228 of 1982/BWP).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Petitioner tenant challenging order of High Court declining to interfere in order of eviction against him in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Tenant conceding that order of eviction had already been executed and that he was no more in possession‑‑Tenant stating that his appeal against the same eviction order has already been admitted and pending in the High Court involving similar questions of lain as raised in petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed as having become infructuous with observation that dismissal of petition would not prejudice case of either party in regular Second Appeal pending before High Court.
A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑This is a tenants' petition arising out of an order of his eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. The High Court has declined to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel stated that the order of eviction has already been executed and the petitioners are no more in possession. He, however, stated that a Regular First Appeal having been filed) from the petitioners' side in the High Court involving questions similar as are involved in this petition, already stands admitted. After hearing the learned counsel, we dismiss this petition as having become infructuous. This order shall not prejudice the case of either party in the Regular Second Appeal pending before the High Court.
M.Y.H./K‑51/S Petition dismissed.