Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 92 of 1980, decided on 3rd March, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 8-10-1979 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in S. A. O. No. 246 of 1978).

-- S. 13(3) (a) (ii)-Personal requirement - Landlord filing eject ment application against his tenant in another shop and Supreme Court in such case upholding findings of lower Courts as to require ment of landlord being not bona fide-Contention that such decision should have reacted on landlord's personal requirement in present case also due to ground for eviction being same, viz., personal requirement-Held : Circumstances relied upon by counsel would be relevant only for purpose of determining whether claim of land lord in present case as to his requirement of another shop for personal use of his son not false-Lower Courts further having concurrently found in favour of landlord, no justification, held. for interference by Supreme Court.

Khwaja Mohammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Kh. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court with S. A6id Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 3rd March, 1980.

-Leave to appeal is sought from the judgment dated 8th October 1979, whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner against his eviction from a shop, was dismissed.

Four grounds were raised before the Rent Controller : (1) personal requirement : (2) default in payment of rent : (3) damage to the property ; and (4) subletting. The learned Rent Controller found in favour of the petitioner on the issues relating to subletting, the default in the payment of rent and the damage to the property ; but giving a finding of fact against him, on the personal requirement, directed ejectment of the petitioner. On appeal by the petitioner and cross- objections filed from the respondent's side, the learned first appellate Court upheld the decision of the learned Rent Controller on question of personal requirement and at the same time accepted the cross objections filed by the respondent and found two more issues relating to subletting and default, in favour of the respondent. On second appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court, the findings of fact on questions of default in payment of rent and subletting, by the first appellate 'Court, were set aside. However, concurrent finding of fact with regard to the personal requirement of the respondent was upheld.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in support of this petition, raised only one contention ; namely, that the respondent landlord had filed an application for ejectment of his tenant from another property (a shop). That case came upto the Supreme Court and the decision of the first appellate Court therein, to the effect that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide, was upheld. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the said decision should have tacked on the respondent's plea of personal requirement in this case also ; in which although the application related to a different shop, yet the ground for eviction was the same, namely, personal requirement. Learned counsel has produce for our perusal the copies of the orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court in the aforementioned other case.

It is true that the respondent did not succeed in getting the tenant evicted from his other shop and one of the considerations which weighed with the Courts then was, that he had filed another eviction application regarding another shop (namely the present case) as well. But the circumstances relied upon by the learned counsel would be relevant only for purpose of determining whether the claim of the respondent in the present case that he required another shop for personal use of his son, is not false. The learned Rent Controller as also both the learned appellate Courts came to concurrent finding of fact that the requirement of the respondent regarding the shop involved in this case for his son, namely Mohammad Farooq, was bona fide. Three learned Courts having relied upon the statement of the respondent and his son, in order to reach the concurrent finding of fact with regard to the bona fide claim of the respondent on question of personal requirement regarding the shop in dispute in this case, there is no justification for this Court for interference. It is not a fit case for grant of leave. The petition accordingly is dismissed. . Subject to payment of rent, the petitioner is allowed two months' time to vacate the shop.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.