| Case ID |
1ee70abe-9f02-4394-b5dc-03cf4e95b1dc |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 92 of 1959 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 22, 1960 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 15, 1960 |
| Decision |
The Dacca High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kazi Altaf Hussain against the House Rent Controller, affirming that the existence of alternative remedies under the East Bengal Premises Rent Control Act is not a bar to the entertainment of a writ petition. However, since the petitioner had already exhausted these remedies and failed, the High Court found no grounds to interfere in the impugned decisions. The court emphasized that while it has wide jurisdiction to issue writs, it cannot act as a court of appeal to re-evaluate all decisions made by lower courts. The slight procedural defect cited by the petitioner did not warrant the issuance of a writ, as the Rent Controller acted within his jurisdiction. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the limitations of the writ jurisdiction. |
| Summary |
In the case of Kazi Altaf Hussain vs. The House Rent Controller and Others, the Dacca High Court examined the limits of its writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of Pakistan. The case arose from a tenant's appeal against a Rent Controller's decision that allowed the landlord to sue for ejectment based on bona fide requirement. The petitioner argued that procedural irregularities had occurred, but the court ruled that such claims did not meet the threshold for granting a writ, especially since the petitioner had already sought and failed to obtain relief through alternate legal channels. The judgment reiterated the principle that the High Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of lower courts simply due to perceived errors unless those errors are glaring violations of justice or jurisdiction. This ruling reinforces the procedural integrity of rent control matters in Pakistan, emphasizing the necessity for tenants to utilize existing remedies effectively before seeking writ relief. The court's decision also highlighted the importance of natural justice in legal proceedings, indicating that while procedural defects can be significant, they must be substantial enough to warrant judicial intervention. This case serves as a crucial reference for future legal disputes regarding tenant rights and the judicial review process in the context of rent control legislation. |
| Court |
Dacca High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Justice Akbar,
Justice Asir
|
| Lawyers |
Asrarul Hossain,
Md. Nurul Huq,
K. M. Sobhan,
Hamidul Huq Chowdhury,
Shafiqur Rahman
|
| Petitioners |
Kazi Altaf Hussain
|
| Respondents |
The House Rent Controller,
Mst. Matia Begum,
Suja Khan
|
| Citations |
1960 SLD 439,
1960 PLD 400
|
| Other Citations |
Khurshed Mody v. Rent Controller, Bombay and another A I R 1947 Bom. 46,
Debi Sankar Bhattacharjee v. Dr. Jogendra Bhusan Sanyal 52 C W N 602,
State of U. P. v. Mohammad Nooh (A I R 1958 S C 86),
In Re. Authers reported in (1889) 22,Q B D 345
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
East Bengal Premises Rent Control Act (XVI of 1953)
|
| Sections |
170,
18
|