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.
1980 S C M R 931
Present: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
NAZIR AHMAD ETC‑petitioners
Versus
RIAZUL HAQ AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 467 of 1977, decided en 11th February, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑6‑1977, in S. A. O. No. 281(77).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1939)
----Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal use/requirement of shop by landlord‑Judgment of High Court and order of District Judge well supported from relevant record and attending evidence‑No misreading or omission of any evidence or violation of any principle of law on question of fact pointed out‑Held, interference by Supreme Court not warranted in case.
Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 11th February, 1980.
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J
‑The petitioners/tenants have come up in a petition for special appeal against the order of the High Court data 28-6-1977 dismissing their second appeal being S.A.O. No. 281/77 and maintaining the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 24‑3‑1977, by which he had accepted the appeal of the landlords against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 12‑2‑1976, and had ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the shop in dispute on the ground that the, same was needed by the landlords/respondents for their personal use requirement.
2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel was that on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the finding, of "requirement for personal use" as recorded by the two Courts below is not correct. The contention has no merit. The judgment of the High Court and the order of the learned Additional District Judge are well sup ported from the relevant record and the attending evidence mentioned therein. The question involved is essentially one of fact. Learned counsel was unable to point out any misreading or omission of any evidence of violation of any principle of law relevant in the context, warranting interference by this Court.
9. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
The petitioners, however, are given two months time to vacate the property in dispute, subject to continuous payment of rent in the meantime.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer