| Case ID |
00b28cd4-22f6-438a-8da3-a912e1591576 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 187 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 31, 1984 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the dismissal of the petition seeking special leave to appeal in Civil Petition No. 187 of 1983. The court concluded that the petitioner, Iqbal Ahmad, failed to demonstrate any illegality in the eviction proceedings determined by the lower courts. Specifically, the court noted that the petitioner sought a re-appraisal of evidence on factual matters that had already been conclusively decided by statutory forums, namely the Rent Controller and the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that once such questions of fact are determined by authorized judicial bodies, they are generally not subject to re-examination unless there is a clear indication of procedural or legal misconduct. In this case, the petitioner did not provide sufficient grounds to challenge the concurrent determinations made by the Rent Controller of Sargodha and the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused the leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the eviction order on the basis of the landlord's personal need for the property. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of *Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 187 of 1983*, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on October 31, 1984, the petitioner, Iqbal Ahmad, sought to overturn an eviction order issued against him. This case delves into the intricate facets of tenancy laws, eviction processes, and the appellate mechanisms within Pakistan's judicial system. The Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Muhammad Haleem and comprising justices Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, and M.S.H. Quraishi, meticulously examined the grounds on which the eviction was based.
At the heart of the dispute was the application of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), specifically Section 15, which governs ejectment on the grounds of personal need. The petitioner contested the eviction, arguing that the landlord's claim of personal need was unfounded and that the eviction order stemmed from a misappreciation of evidence by the Rent Controller of Sargodha and the Additional District Judge. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that the landlord had previously obtained possession of an adjacent property under similar pretenses, suggesting a pattern of wrongful evictions.
However, the Lahore High Court had previously dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a decision that was briefly set aside and remanded for re-hearing before ultimately being upheld. The Supreme Court's scrutiny reaffirmed the principle that once a statutory forum, such as the Rent Controller or a District Judge, has made determinations on factual questions, these decisions are typically conclusive and not subject to re-evaluation in higher courts unless procedural irregularities are evident.
The case underscores the robustness of Pakistan's legal framework in upholding landlord rights while simultaneously providing avenues for tenants to challenge eviction orders. It highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain between preventing unlawful evictions and ensuring that landlords can reclaim property for legitimate personal or business needs. The dismissal of the petition serves as a precedent, reinforcing the authority of lower judicial bodies in determining factual disputes related to tenancy and eviction.
For legal practitioners and scholars, this case offers valuable insights into the appellate process concerning tenancy disputes in Pakistan. It emphasizes the limited scope for re-appraising factual determinations made by specialized forums and underscores the importance of presenting clear evidence of procedural or substantive legal violations to challenge such decisions in higher courts. Additionally, the involvement of high-ranking justices in the Supreme Court reflects the case's significance within the judiciary, potentially influencing future interpretations of tenancy laws and eviction ordinances.
From an SEO perspective, this case is pivotal for understanding tenant rights, eviction laws in Pakistan, and the appellate mechanisms available for challenging judicial decisions. Keywords such as 'Pakistan tenancy laws', 'eviction process Pakistan', 'Supreme Court of Pakistan decisions', 'West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance', and 'legal appeal procedures Pakistan' are highly relevant and present opportunities for content creators aiming to rank effectively in legal discourse online. The case also touches upon broader themes of property rights, judicial oversight, and the rule of law, which are trending topics in legal analysis and discourse. By exploring the nuances of this decision, stakeholders can gain a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape governing tenancy and property disputes in Pakistan, making it a cornerstone case for both legal reference and SEO-driven legal content strategies. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Lahore High Court,
Rent Controller, Sargodha,
Additional District Judge, Sargodha,
District Judge, Sargodha
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.,
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN,
NASIM HASAN SHAH,
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA,
M.S.H.QURAISHI, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
IQBAL AHMAD
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD MUJTABA and others
|
| Citations |
1985 SLD 517,
1985 SCMR 544
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan,
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
|
| Sections |
Art. 185(3),
S.15
|