Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 195 of 1973, decided on 11th October 1973.
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, dated the 12th March 1973, in S. A. O. No. 12 of 1972).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑
‑‑ S. 13(a)(ii)(b)‑Even remotest suggestion never made of respondent landlord having any building or land contemplated under S. 13(a)(ii)(b)‑Objections never raised at any stage of case earlier‑Not allowed to be raised at leave to appeal stage.
Sh. Manzur Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wah Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 11th October 1973.
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑
The petitioners were tenants in respect of the disputed shop under the respondent, and they have been aggrieved by the order of ejectment passed against them by the Rent Controller and main tained in the 1st and 2nd appeals by the Additional District Judge and the High Court respectively.
The ejectment had been claimed on two grounds, namely, (1) the respon dent bona fide required the disputed shop for personal use and occupation; and (2) the respondent bona fide and reasonably intended to demolish the existing structure and reconstruct the building.
It has been contended before us that under section 13(o)(ii)(b) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 one of the essentials for ejectment in the case of a non‑residential building is that the applicant for ejectment is not occupying in the same urban area in which the dispute building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the same may be, suitable for his needs at the time, and as this essential was neither alleged to have been fulfilled nor proved in the case, the order of ejectment was illegal.
It appears that this objection was never raised by the petitioners at any stage of the case earlier, and they never asked for the framing of an issue on it. We, therefore, think that it is now too late for them to raise this issue. There has not been the remotest suggestion that the respondent had any such building or rented land as is contemplated under the aforesaid section 13(a)(ii)(b) of the said Ordinance.
There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer