| Case ID |
0b1db9ac-1b1f-4d99-8e7c-3affd0e1bca0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 361 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 23, 1984 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 22nd March 1983 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional petition filed by a tenant, arising out of orders of his ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent and the personal requirement of the respondent landlady, was dismissed. The learned Judge in the High Court dealt with the question of law regarding whether a Constitutional writ petition would be a proper remedy in cases like the present one. He considered the case as one concluded by findings of fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the plea of misreading/non-reading of the record had not been properly considered by the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find it fit to interfere with the findings of fact. The refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is unexceptionable. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case titled *Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 361 of 1982*, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on August 23, 1984, significant legal precedents were established concerning constitutional jurisdiction and tenant rights. The case, cited as 1985 SLD 488 and 1985 SCMR 477, originated from a judgment by the Lahore High Court dated March 22, 1983, in Writ Petition No. 7251 of 1980. The petitioners, Muhammad Afzal Zullah, M.S.H. Quraishi, and Abdul Ghani, challenged the ejectment of a tenant, Mst. Zubaida Begum, based on alleged non-payment of rent and the landlady's personal requirement of the property.
Central to the legal debate were provisions from the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), specifically Article 185(3), which pertains to the constitutional jurisdiction of courts in reviewing certain cases. The case also invoked the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Section 13, which governs the conditions under which tenants can be evicted. Additionally, the Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), particularly Article 9, was examined to determine its relevance and application in the context of constitutional jurisdiction over property disputes.
Judge Muhammad Afzal Zullah, alongside Justices M.S.H. Quraishi and Abdul Ghani, presided over the case. The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the High Court's decision, focusing on whether the High Court erred in treating the case as one concluded by findings of fact, thereby limiting its scope for constitutional intervention. The petitioners contended that the High Court had misread or failed to adequately consider the record, undermining the tenant's rights under the prevailing laws.
The Supreme Court, after thorough deliberation, upheld the High Court's decision. It affirmed that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction was justifiable and did not warrant interference. The Court emphasized the principle that not all cases are amenable to constitutional scrutiny, especially those primarily resolved through factual determinations rather than legal interpretations. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction in civil petitions.
This decision has profound implications for future cases involving tenant-landlord disputes, particularly in urban settings governed by rent restriction ordinances. It delineates the extent to which higher courts can intervene in cases deemed to be settled by lower courts through factual findings. Legal practitioners and scholars often reference this case when navigating the complexities of constitutional jurisdiction and property law in Pakistan.
The ruling also underscores the importance of precise legal arguments and the adherence to jurisdictional protocols when escalating cases to higher courts. The dismissal serves as a precedent, guiding how similar cases should be approached and adjudicated, ensuring that constitutional provisions are applied judiciously without overstepping the intended legal framework.
In the broader context of Pakistani jurisprudence, this case contributes to the ongoing discourse on balancing tenant protections with property rights, illustrating the judiciary's role in maintaining this equilibrium. It highlights the judiciary's discretion in determining the appropriate legal remedies and the limitations thereof, ensuring that constitutional mandates are respected while upholding the rule of law. The decision remains a pivotal reference point for cases involving special leave to appeal, constitutional petitions, and the interpretation of statutory provisions related to property and tenancy.
By meticulously analyzing the interplay between constitutional articles and statutory ordinances, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the procedural and substantive aspects of such legal challenges. This clarity aids lawyers, judges, and legal scholars in understanding the scope and limitations of constitutional reviews in civil disputes, fostering a more predictable and structured legal environment. The case exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal standards while ensuring that the hierarchical structure of the court system is respected in the adjudication process. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Provisional Constitution Order,
Constitution of Pakistan,
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH,
M.S.H. QURAISHI,
ABDUL GHANI
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
M.S.H. QURAISHI,
ABDUL GHANI,
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH
|
| Respondents |
Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM and others
|
| Citations |
1985 SLD 488,
1985 SCMR 477
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),
Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)
|
| Sections |
Art.185(3),
Art.9,
S.13,
Art.9
|