Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MEHR DIN VS Respondent: NAZIR AHMAD
1988 S C M R 1637
1988 S C M R 1637
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MEHR DIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.640 of 1984, decided on 14th May, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 13‑3‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.1656 of 1983).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Demarcation of portions of disputed property‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Inter ference with‑‑Petitioner and respondent .transferees of different portions of same premises‑‑Petitioner seeking ejectment of respondent from a part of premises‑‑Question arising whether part in dispute was transferred to petitioner‑‑Said question being one of fact and concurrent findings of all Courts being against petitioner, Supreme Court declined to interfere.
Mahfuzul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Respondent No.1 in person. Nemo for other Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner and respondent No.1 were transferees of different portions of the same premises. The petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller for the eviction of respondent No.1 from a part of the premises on the ground that the said part had been transferred to him but was in the occupation of respondent No.1. The Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that the part in dispute had not been transferred to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who dismissed the same after affirming the ‑finding of the Rent Controller. The petitioner then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether the part in dispute was transferred t .the petitioner is one of fact. There are concurrent findings of all the Courts against him on this question. We find no reason to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed.
M.I./M‑508/S Petition dismissed.