Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL WAHEED VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ZAFAR
1988 S C M R 1341
1988 S C M R 1341
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL WAHEED‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1064 of 1985, decided on 14th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the order dated 1‑12‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No.3583/85).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑Controversy before High Court was one of fact only which had been resolved against the petitioner‑‑Petitioner tenant had already been evicted‑‑Petitioner's claim for specific performance through a regular suit was still pending‑‑Controversy being one of fact and already stood resolved by Courts below, and no justification having been found for interference by Supreme Court, petition was dismissed with the observation that dismissal of petition would not prejudice the case of petitioner in the pending suit for specific performance.
Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a tenant's petition in a rent restriction matter calling in question his ejectment. His Writ Petition has been dismissed. Now he seeks leave to appeal. The controversy before the High Court was one of fact only, which has been resolved against the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel admits that the petitioner has already been evicted.
In the circumstances of this case, the controversy being one of fact already stands resolved by the learned Courts below we, therefore, do not find any justification for interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's claim for specific performance through a regular suit which is still pending, would be prejudice by the dismissal of this petition. It is observed that if the same is still pending in some Court, it shall not be prejudiced by this Order.
3. With the afore‑going observations, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.B.A./A‑234/S Petition dismissed.