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. 109-R of 1979, decided on 2nd July, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 6th of March, 1979 in S. A. O. No. 646 of 1978).
-- S 13(3) (a) (ii)--Eviction of tenant-Requirement for son-Examination of son in witness-box-Not necessary-Eviction of tenant, held, cannot be challenged on ground of failure to examine son having deprived tenant of opportunity to test truth of requirement of shop for son as alleged in petition.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 2nd July 1979.
-Muhammad Sharif petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing his S. A. O. in a rent matter. The facts briefly are that M. S. Sultan respondent landlord filed an ejectment application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the petitioner's eviction from a. shop bearing No. K/28 in Teti Mohallah, Raza Shah Pehalvi Road, Rawalpindi. The main ground taken in the ejectment application was that of personal need of Farooq Sultan the son of the respondent-landlord. The learned Rent Controller decided the issue of requirement for personal use in the respondent and ordered the eviction of Muhammad Sharif- petitioner by an order dated 2nd of February, 1979. Aggrieved by the said order Muhammad Sharif filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (111), Rawalpindi on 26th of October, 1978. The petitioner then filed a second appeal in the High Court which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 6th of March, 1979. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that respondent's son Farooq Sultan, for whose benefit the petitioner was sought to be ejected from the shop in question, never appeared as a witness in support of the assertion that the same was required for his use. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner was thus deprived of the opportunity of testing the truth of the afore mentioned assertion.
We feel that the contention is devoid of force. There is no require ment of law that the person for whose benefit the premises are required to be vacated must be produced in support of the ejectment application. All that has to be seen in the present case is whether enough evidence has been brought on record by the applicant to sustain a finding of the requirement of the premises for the personal use of his son. The learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate Courts below have found the requirement in question to have been proved. The matter therefore stands concluded by a concurrent finding on a question of fact. No good ground has been urged to warrant interference with that finding.
The petitioner is however granted four months' time to vacate the shop subject to payment of the monthly rent before the 15th of each month.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer