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. 29 of 1978, decided on 5th November, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑1‑1978 in S. A. O. No. 11/78).
--Ss. 13 & 15‑Ejectment for personal use‑Finding of fact by Courts below regarding shop in dispute being required by landlord in good faith supported by attending circumstances and evidence on record‑No omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law warranting interference pointed out‑Point raised merely pertaining to appreciation of evidence and not sufficient to dislodge finding of courts below‑Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed.‑[Evidence].
Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on. Record for. Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th November 1979.
‑The dispute in this case is about Shop No. 3492, Ward No. 8‑M, Multan City. Allah Ditta respondent/landlord filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from this shop on the ground that the shop was needed by him and his son for doing business therein. The application was accepted by the learned Rent Controller and by means of his order dated 3‑2‑1977, he held that the landlord required the shop in good faith for the purpose aforesaid and consequently directed the eviction of the petitioner, therefrom. The petitioner/tenant filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on 15‑11‑1977.
2. The petitioner/tenant then filed S.A.O. No. 11/78 in the High Court, which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 10‑1‑1978.
3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same, to this Court.
4. Learned counsel argued that the finding of the courts below that the shop was needed by the landlord in good faith for his own use and for his son was not correct, inasmuch as the son of the landlord was actually taking training of business at another shop of his relatives which, according to the learned counsel showed that the son would not be in a position to do any independent business by himself. The contention has no merit. The very fact that the boy was getting training in another shop rather goes to show that he would need the shop for an independent business in their own shop. It was further argued that the actual aim of the landlord was to enhance the rent and ejectment application had been filed with an ulterior motive as a counter‑blast when the petitioner refused to increase the rent. All the Courts below have gone through the evidence and after giving cogent reasons have recorded a fading that the shop was required by the landlord in good faith for his personal use and for use by his son. Their finding on this point of fact is duly supported by the attending circumstances and the evidence on the record. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law warranting interference by this Court. The point raised merely pertains to the appreciation of evidence and is not sufficient to dislodge the finding aforesaid.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is 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