PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English
← Back to rent laws

1990 SCMR 957 SUPREME-COURT

Supreme Court · 1990

Full text

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS ADDITIONAL DILTRICT JUDGE Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975--2 , Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 ----S. 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Petitioners and respondents purchasing, in auction, adjoining property---Demarcation of property was got done through Settlement Authorities by respondent ex parte against petitioners whereby portion of shop in question was allocated to respondent--Respondent on basis of such demarcation, claimed statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and petitioners by filing a case for eviction on various grounds---Rent Controller dismissed eviction application holding that relationship of landlord and tenant could not be established on basis of material on record---Respondent's appeal succeeded and appellate Authority ordered eviction---Petitioners'Constitutional petition against order of eviction was dismissed---Leave to appeal---Contention was raised that notified Authority had not actually conducted demarcation as ordered by High Court and that from evidence and other material it was evident that petitioners were transferees of disputed portion of property and order of demarcation passed by the Authority was a nullity because of having been passed ex parte and also after PTD had been issued---Applying the law laid down by Supreme Court in Raunaq Ali's case reported as PLD :1973 SC 236, that Tribunal having restricted jurisdiction could not sit in judgment over the jurisdiction of another Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, Supreme Court held that the order of demarcation could not be challenged before Rent Controller nor could the Rent Controller sit in judgment over the same---Respondent on basis of that demarcation order had to be taken as landlord of petitioners and on that conclusion, order of eviction, passed by Appellate Authority was legal and proper---Leave to appeal was refused.