Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 562 of 1981, decided oti 16th May 1981.

(Against the judgment and order dated 12-4-1981, passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 154/81).

0. XX, rr. 4 (2) & 5---Judgment-Impugned order though brief yet clearly indicating point urged before Court and ratio of decision also evident-Court, held, not bound to unnecessarily record along judgment as long as intelligible and to point.--

Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on -Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 16th May 1981.

.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12-4-1981, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. Tlic facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly, are; that Mehdi Hassan, petitioner was a tenant of Sh. Sardar Muhammad, respondent in respect of the shop in Rawalpindi. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of personal requirement, for use by his son. The learned Rent Controller decided the issue of personal need in respondent's favour and ordered the petitioner's ejectment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal against his eviction which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 13-5-1981, upholding the finding of the Rent Controller to respect of the issue of personal need. The petitioner, then challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, in the High Court through writ petition which was dismissed on 12-4-1981. Hence, the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. The only contention raised by the petitioner's learned counsel is that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is very short. We have gone through the impugned judgment and we feel that the learned Appellate Court has decided the question urged before his very succinctly. The order is, indeed, brief, but. it clearly indicates the point urged before the Court and the ratio of the decision is also evident. We agree with the finding given by the learned Additional District Judge and feel that h was not bound to record unnecessarily a long judgment as long as it is intelligible and to the point.

4. No contention on which the constitutional jurisdiction of the. High Court could have been properly invoked was taken in the writ petition. It would, therefore, have been dismissed on that short ground and the High Court was not required to enter into the merits of the case.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force.

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.