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. 78 of 1980, decided on 3rd February 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 19th December 1979, in S. A. O. No. 525 of 1979).
--- S. 13-Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of disputed property by landlord-No omission or misreading of evidence nor violation of any principle of relevant law pointed out by tenant Appreciation of evidence by Courts below found to be without factual or legal mistake---Held, case concluded by concurrent findings of fact and no interference called for by Supreme Court.-[Evidence].
Ch. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid. Hussain, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Abdul Mannan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advo cate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 3rd February 1980.
-The dispute in this case is regarding a shop bearing No. P/168, situated in Arshad Market, Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad, The petitioner was occupying this shop as a tenant under the respondents who filed an application for his eviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, on the ground of default in the payment of rent and personal need/requirement. The applica tion was accepted by the learned Rent Controller who by order dated 19-7-1978, accepted the pleas of the landlords and directed eviction of the petitioner/tenant.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 9-7-1979, on the ground that the personal need/requirement of the landlord stood fully established on the record.
3. The petitioner filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 525/79, and the landlords also filed a counter appeal being S. A. O. 551/79, to reagitate the plea of default. Both these appeals were dismissed by the High Court on 19-12-1979, with the result that the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of the personal need/requirement of the landlords remained operative in the field.
4. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. Learned counsel argued that the views of the Courts below on the subject of the personal need/requirement of the landlords was not correct. We have heard the learned counsel at length, but we must say that he has not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence, nor violation of any principle of law applicable to cases of this type. His argu ments pertained merely to appreciation of evidence, where again he could not refer to any factual or legal mistake. The case being concluded by concurrent findings of fact is not fit for grant of special leave.
6. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer