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. 740 of 1979, decided on 11th December, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑6 1979 in S.A.O. 426/77).
--S. 13.‑Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of landlord‑ Concurrent findings of two appellate Courts that existing premises (for running his dispensary) was not sufficient for landlord's needs‑No error found in such finding‑.Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Kh. M. Tufail, Advocate and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate for. Respondent.
Date of hearing : 11th December 1979.
‑The petitioner is in occupation of a shop leased to him by the respondent. There is a Chaubara over it in which the respon dent's son, one Sated Ahmed, is practising as a homeopath. But the respon dent wants Sated Ahmad to carry on his practice in the shop, because of the obvious advantages, which the shop has over the Chaubara. In these circumstances, after his son had been trained as a homeopath, he filed an application against the petitioner in the Court of the Rent Controller for the petitioner's eviction. The respondent admitted that Sated Ahmad was practising in the Chaubara, and as there was evidence to show that the respondent had sometime earlier increased the rent of the shop, the Rent Controller accepted the petitioner's contention that the respondent had failed to prove that he required the shop in good faith for his son, therefore, he dismissed the respondent's eviction application.
The respondent challenged the dismissal of his eviction application in an appeal in the District Court and on a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, held that the marginal increase of rent which had been demanded by the respondent and accepted by the petitioner was on account of the increase of local taxes. Therefore, he rejected the petitioner's contention that the eviction application of the respondent was not bona fide. He then observed that it was proved that Sated Ahmad was running "his business in a Chaubara which is insufficient for his requirements, There is no proof of the fact that the appellant owns any other building in the area. Accordingly, by his order dated 23‑6‑1977, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the respondent's appeal and ordered the petitioner's eviction.
The petitioner challenged his eviction in an appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Judge on 3‑6‑1979. Hence this petition for leave.
Kh. Tufail submitted that the eviction application had been filed after the respondent had increased the rent of the shop and this reacted against the bona fides of the respondent's claim. But, he could not assail the finding of the first appellate Court that the rent had been increased because of the increase in local rates of taxes. Therefore, there is no merit in this submission.
Learned counsel then submitted that the property owned by the respondent was a non‑residential building, because admittedly Saeed Ahmad was practising as a homeopath in the Chaubara, In view of this submission, we wanted to know where Saeed Ahmad was residing, as he could be residing in the Chaubara in which he carried on his occupation. Learned counsel was not able to give a satisfactory reply, therefore it is not necessary to examine this submission and the only point is whether, the respondent had proved that the Chaubara in which Saeed Ahmad was practising was not suitable for his needs. Both the first appellate Court and the second appellate Court have denied this question in the respondent's favour. Additionally, as it is obvious that a dispensary on the ground floor of a building would be more accessible to the public than one in a Chaubara, we see no error of law in the concurrent finding of the two appellate Courts that the Chaubara occupied by Saeed Ahmad was not suitable for his needs. Therefore, We see no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. We, however give the petitioner four months' time to handover vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer