PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

VANGUARD BOOKS (PVT.) LTD. vs LOK VIRSA Ss — 2022 YLRN 51 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Citation
2022 YLRN 51 ISLAMABAD
Court
Islamabad High Court
Year
2022
Parties
VANGUARD BOOKS (PVT.) LTD. vs LOK VIRSA Ss
Subject matter
Rent
Provisions referred to
S. 3---E; S. 3; Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance; Companies Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

VANGUARD BOOKS (PVT.) LTD. VS LOK VIRSA Ss. 17 & 1(2)---National Institute of Folk and Traditional Heritage (Lok Virsa), Ordinance (LIV of 2002), S. 3---Eviction of tenant---Exclusion of Government buildings from application of the Ordinance---Scope---Respondent filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, which was dismissed being not maintainable due to bar contained in the notification issued by the Ministry of Interior through which Government buildings were excluded from the application of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---Respondent, thereafter, served the petitioner with notice impugned herein---Validity---Respondent was established under S. 3 of the National Institute of Folk and Traditional Heritage (Lok Virsa), Ordinance, 2002---Respondent was a body corporate---Term 'body corporate' had a wider connotation than the term 'corporation' (though all corporations incorporated under the Company Law were body corporate) and included all corporations incorporated under the Companies Act, 2017, and all those created through special Act of the Parliament---When an institution was created by the legislature and they expressly provided for the formation of body corporate having perpetual succession, common seal, capacity to acquire, dispose of property and the ability to sue and being sued was conferred, the same had an independent status and could not be termed as Government---Ability to sue and be sued was of great legal importance---When respondent was sued, it was not required to be sued through government, similarly when respondent sued it did not require to sue through government because it could do so on its own---Respondent had its own common seal, while in case of government it needed not have an independent and separate seal---Word 'Government' as contained in the notification could not be held applicable in the case of petitioner---Conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller was not correct appreciation of law on the subject---Respondent, being not left remediless, could avail all remedies as per law---Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English