Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: REHMAN AND COMPANY REGISTERED VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ASGHAR
1988 S C M R 1338
1988 S C M R 1338
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
REHMAN AND COMPANY REGISTERED‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.854 of 1985, decided on 14th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the order dated 6‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No.1875/84).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13(4)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Finding of fact that tenant was ordered to be ejected on account of an agreement between the parties and not as a result of Court adjudication‑ Contention of petitioner that alleged agreement was not accepted and owned by him‑‑No justification having been shown for interference with findings of fact‑‑Petition dismissed.
Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A tenant has sought leave to appeal in a rent restriction matter against a judgment of a Lahore High Court; whereby his Constitutional petition was dismissed.
2. The respondents‑side had earlier succeeded in obtaining eviction orders against the petitioner. The present proceedings have arisen out of the petitioner's effort to seek restoration of possession under section 13(4) of R.R. Ordinance which has been declined on a finding of fact that the eviction of the petitioner was on account of an agreement between the parties and not as a result of Court adjudication.
3. The learned counsel has contender that the alleged agreement was not accepted and owned by the petitioner. However, it the findings in the fact rendered by the Court. below against the petitioner is behalf are not set aside by this Court for reasons stated in the petition, he would have no case to pursue any further.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of fact rendered against the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.B.A./R‑54/S Petition dismissed.