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.
P L D 1979 Lahore 262
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Appellant, :
versus -
Mst. AKBARI BEGUM-Respondent
Second Appeal from Original Order No: 544 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 5703 of 1978, decided on 17th October 1978.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-
-- S. 15(4) read with S. 13-Ground that landlady's son for whom shop in dispute needed had left country-Held, ejectment order passed by Rent Controller cannot be interfered with on such ground.
Syed Inayat Hussain for Appellant.
ORDER
This second appeal is directed against an order for ejectment of the appellant, Muhammad Rafique, from a shop owned by the respondent,
Mst. Akbri Begum. The impugned order was passed by a Rent Controller and upheld, in appeal, by an Additional District Judge. The ground on which the ejectment of the appellant has been ordered is that the respondent required the shop in dispute for her son.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent's son for whom the shop was needed had gone abroad six months ago and, therefore, the shop was no longer required by her. This plea was not taken by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge who decided the first appeal on 23rd July 1978, during the last six months. Therefore, it appears to be an afterthought. Even if the respondent's son has gone abroad this is no reason for re-opening the case on merits. With a view to protecting the interests of a tenant in the situations like the one pointed out by the appellant, adequate safeguard has been made in subsection (4) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. If the appellant is dispossessed from the shop in dispute in execution of the impugned order but the shop is not occupied by her son within one month of his dispossession he (appellant) can regain the possession thereof under the aforesaid provisions of the law. The order under appeal, therefore, does not call for any interference on the ground that the respondent's son, who needed the shop in dispute, is alleged to have left the country.
3. No other contention was raised by the learned counsel.
4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer