Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-5-1980, in S. A. O. No. 687/78).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)----

S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-EJectment-Bona fide requirement-Concurrent findings Court below giving cogent reasons showing landlord s genuine need of shop to accommodate his son and himself Case concluded by concurrent findings of fact-Case not suffering violation of any principle of law applicable to case and all arguments pertaining merely to appreciation of evidence and such being no ground for grant of special leave-Landlord also in possession of necessary plan approved from proper authority for reconstruction of shop-Petition, held, devoid of merits.

Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Advocate-on-record for Petitioner. Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th July 1980.

.-The petitioner who is a tenant was directed to be ejected from the shop in dispute-(described more fully in the petition)-by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 21-5-1976, on the ground that it was needed by the respondent/landlord for his personal use/need after reconstruction. The first appeal and second appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the High Court on 18-10-1978 and 20-5-1980 respectively.

2. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

3. We have heard the learned counsel at length. In our opinion the case is concluded by a concurrent finding of fact by the three courts below the landlord requires this shop for his personal bona fide use/need after reconstruction. The learned counsel could not convince us that the case suffered from violation of any principle of law applicable to cases of this type, and all the arguments raised before us pertained merely to appreciation of evidence which it is well settled is no ground to grant special leave. The Courts below have given cogent reasons to show that the landlord has a genuine need to accommodate his son and himself and for that purpose to reconstruct the shop. The landlord has got necessary plan approved from the proper authority. If he does not raise the construction the la take care of it by providing for a relevant action which can be taken in that respect.

4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given two months time to vacate the property voluntarily without any hurdle and without causing any damage to it and subject to payment of rent in accordance with law and clearing the arrears in to at the time of handing over possession to the landlord.

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.