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. 35 of 1976, decided on 17th November 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27-11-1975, in, S, A. O. 17/70)
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-
-- S. 13-Ejectment on grounds of personal use and reconstruction Occupation of a rented shop by landlord--Held, not a disqualification in law for asking for eviction of a tenant from his own shop on ground of personal use-Need for personal use and reconstruction established on record-Orders of eviction passed by Courts below not open to challenge in appeal before Supreme Court.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate, 'Supreme Court and Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1980.
.-Ghulam NABI and another, respondent: filed an application for eviction of the petitioners tenants from the shop in dispute bearing No. B-1-17-S-495, situated in Hafizabad, on the ground of default in payment so. rent, requirement for, personal use, and reconstruc tion. The learned Rent Controller on 20-5-1968, accepted the application and directed the eviction of the tenant petitioners.
2. The petitioners filed an appeal with was dismissed on 8-1-1970 by the learned District Judge.
3. The petitioners filed a second appeal being S. A. O. 37/70 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by High Court 'on 27-11-1975.
4. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. Learned counsel argued that the respondents bad already a rented shop in the same urban area therefore their need for their personal use was not in good faith. The contention has no merit. Occupation of a rented shop by a landlord is not a disqualification in law for asking for eviction of a tenant from own shop on the ground above mentioned. The need for personal use and reconstruction has duly been established on the record and learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal of factual mistake therein.
6. The result is that this petition has n6 merit and is dismissed hereby. The tenants/petitioners had obtained a stay order from this Court in the year 1976 and have been retaining the possession of the shop on this basis until now. We do not think that in these circumstances, they deserve grant of any further time for vacating the shop. They are directed to vacate the shop forthwith without objection and should deliver possession to the landlords voluntarily in good grace.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer