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 No. 392 of 1977, decided on 15th July, 1980,
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 25‑5‑1977 in S. A. O. No. 1290 of 1977).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
-----S. 13(2) (iii)‑Material impairment of value or utility of building -Eviction of tenant‑Courts below concurrently recording finding of fact as to tenant having removed two doors between two rooms and having damaged its walls‑Material impairment, held, shown and no room for interference with such finding of fact‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185(3)‑[Finding of fact].
Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent
Date of hearing: 15th July, 1980,
ANWARUL HAQ, C, J
‑The petitioner is aggrieved. by n order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 25th of May 1977, by which the second appeal filed by him against an order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller, was dismissed.
The respondent landlord had moved for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the months of November and December, 1973, and also flu the ground of damaging the property and thus impairing its utility. Both the grounds were accepted by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Additional District Judge in first appeal, and by the High Court in second appeal, although the learned Judge in the High Court has observed that he might have takes, a lenient view on the question of default for the reason that the tenant had deposited Rs. 1,000 as ‑security with the landlord.
Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the damage alleged by the landlord, namely, the removal of doors and tampering with the walls of the shop, was not such as to materially impair the utility of the property, and, therefore, it did not constitute a ground for the petitioner's eviction.
There is no merit in these submissions, as all the three Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had removed the two doors between the two rooms constituting the demised property, and has also damaged its walls. There is no room for our interference with this finding of fact, which shows material impairment.
As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
The petitioner is, however given two months time‑ to vacate the premises.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer