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

RAHIM DAD vs SAEEDA KHANUM S — 2023 PLD 465 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2023 PLD 465 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2023
Reporter
PLD
Parties
RAHIM DAD vs SAEEDA KHANUM S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 8---C; S. 2; S. 43---Q; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887); Punjab Tenancy 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

RAHIM DAD VS SAEEDA KHANUM S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 2(12)---Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 43---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114---Suit for possession and mesne profits---Application to Revenue Officer for ejectment---Estoppel---Scope---Petitioner assailed the judgment and decree whereby the respondent's suit for possession along with recovery of mesne profits was decreed and the petitioner's suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell regarding the same suit property was dismissed---Contention of petitioner was that the respondent's suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court rather the same was triable on revenue side---Validity---Petitioner by filing a suit for specific performance of contract had himself denied his status of a tenant---Similarly, in the suit for possession, he reiterated his position to be the owner of the suit land rather than holding that under the landlord---Petitioner, under the principle of estoppel, was estopped from claiming that Revenue Court was required to decide the eviction suit against him under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887---Even otherwise, the tenancy between the parties had long extinguished, but the petitioner neither had got the period of his tenancy extended nor had he vacated the possession of the suit land, therefore, his possession over the suit land could not be better than that of an illegal occupant---As regards recovery of mesne profits, Appellate Court had rightly observed that since the petitioner's claim of oral agreement could not be proved and he had been in possession over the suit land without paying even a single penny, therefore, he was directed to pay a certain amount, which was equivalent to the last paid lease money, as mesne profit along with 10% annual mark-up---Revision petition was dismissed.

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD

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