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. 754 of 1981, decided on 5th,July, 1981.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench), dated 8-6-1981, passed in S. A. O. 967/LHR (No. 8/BWP-1979).
----- S. 13-Eviction of tenant-Concurrent findings of fact-Issue whether petitioner a tenant of respondent (applicant) or of another An issue on a question of fact-Such issue conclusively decided by three Courts below by concurrent findings-Findings not revisable by Supreme Court in circumstances-Petitioner requesting for grant of time to vacate premises--Appeal appearing to have been filed merely to gain time-Ejectment proceedings having been pending against petitioner for 13 long years-Petitioner in circumstances, held, not entitled to any indulgence-Extension, of time to vacate shop in suit declined.
Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 4th July, 1981.
-This ,petition by Muhammad Ali Shah, is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench), dated 8-6-1981, dismissing his S. A. O., in a rent case.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly, are that Mahmood Ali Shah, petitioner took a shop on rent from one Said Khan, pre decessor-in-interest of Hasan Bibi etc., respondents, vide rent deed dated 4-5-1966, at the monthly rent of Rs. 100. Mahmood Ali Shah, defaulted in paying the monthly rent from September, 1967 onward. The landlord, therefore, filed an application for his ejectment on 15-8-1968. He also took up the ground of requirement of the shop for personal use'. The petitioner in his written statement, took up the position that he was not the tenant of Said Khan, but that of one Karim Bakhsh, to whom he had been paying the rent regularly. An issue was, therefore, framed, regarding existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Con troller came to the conclusion that the said relationship existed between the parties and since the petitioner had, admittedly, not been paying the rent to the said Said Khan, he was automatically a defaulter'. The peti tioner was, therefore, directed to vacate the shop. He, therefore, filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 14-5-1976. He then filed an S. A. O. before the High Court, which too, met the same fate, vide the impugned judgment.
He has now come up to this Court through the present petition.
3. The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was the same, namely, that he was tenant of Karim Bakhsh and not that of the respondent. This is a question of fact which has been conclusively decided by the three Courts below by concurrent findings. In the end the petitioner's counsel prayed for extension of time for vacating the shop in question. It appears that the petition had been filed merely for this purpose, to gain some more time. It would be noticed that application for ejectment was filed in June, 1968, and the S. A. O. was finally dismissed in June, 1961, i.e., after 13 long years. Considering that he had hardly any ground to urge the petitioner should, in fact, not have been advised to file the present petition.
In view of what has been observed above, we are not inclined to grant any extension of time. The petition is dismissed with costs.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer