Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 422 of 1972, decided on 6th October 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 2nd August 1972, in S. A. O. No. 255 of 1972).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),

S. 15(3)(a)(ii)‑Rent Controller as well as ,first appellate Court finding concurrently that landlord seeking ejectment did not own any other shop and he required disputed shop for his personal use High Court, in second appeal, held, rightly refused to interfere with concurrent finding of fact by Courts below.

Hamidud Din, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abd6l Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.

Demo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 6th October 1972.

The petitioners are tenants and. Sub tenants while the respondent is the landlord in respect of the disputed shop. The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioners before the Rent Controller, 7helum under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance, 1959, on the ground of default in payment of rent, sub letting and personal use. The Rent Controller held that there was no default but ordered ejectment on the grounds of sub letting and personal use. On appeal by the petitioners the ‑learned District Judge maintained the order of ejectment on the ground of personal ‑use as well as on the ground of default in payment of rent, having reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the latter ground. The learned District Judge also reversed the finding on the question of sub‑letting and held that there was no sub‑letting. The petitioners' second appeal before the High Court at Lahore was dismissed on the ground of concurrent findings of fact on the question of personal use.

Ch. Hamiduddin, learned Advocate ‑ appearing for the petitioners has contended that in order to eject the tenant three essentials are required under section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the said Ordinance. These are, :‑

(i) that the landlord, in good faith, requires the property for his own use or for the use of any of his male children ;

(ii) that the landlord or his said child is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the case may be, suitable for his needs at the time ; and

(iii) that the landlord has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance, in the said urban area.

It appears that this question was never raised before the‑ High Court. It however, appears on reference to the orders of the Rent Controller as well as the learned District Judge that the first and second essentials were considered by the Courts and they found that the respondent did not own any other shop and that he bona fide required it for his personal use. The contention a regards the third essential, therefore, does not arise. The learned Judge of the High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the appeal.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.