Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No. 9 of 1980, decided on 19th February, 1980.

‑‑S. 13‑Eviction proceedings‑Selection of house in which landlord likes to live and also whether premises in his occupation sufficient for his needs‑Held, within choice of landlord.

Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Appellant.

Raja Said Akbar for Respondent.

The record of the case has been sent fur on the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Additional District Judge Rawalpindi while reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi did not consider the important evidence on record. It was further asserted that the requirement of the respondent did not fall under the provisions of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance as he would be living in the house in question along with is brothers. The record has been received and was perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondent who was present in pursuance to the notice issued in the stay application.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point any misreading or omission to consider important evidence on record. Abdul Hamid respondent has appeared as A. W. I and stated that he needed the premises ‑for his personal use. He intended to marry himself and the accommodation in his occupation was not sufficient for his need. He admitted that there were two rooms in the first floor but it had no privacy. As the personal need in relation to the accommodation in occupation of the respondent has been fully explained, no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Additional District Judge.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that even the respondent has now married. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly pointed out that the mere admission of the respondent that he would be living in this house with his other brothers does not disentitle him to get the possession of the house in dispute. The appellant has also shown his ignorance as to whether the respondent requires the present house for his personal use or not. He also admitted that the respondent had not rented out the vacant possession after the same was obtained by him after evicting the tenant. The law gives the landlord a choice to select any house in which he likes to live and also whether the premises in his occupation are sufficient for his need. As the finding of learned Additional District Judge is based on proper appraisal of the evidence no ground has been made out for interference in the second appeal which is hereby dismissed in liming.

4. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant the learned counsel for the respondent has agreed to grant three months, time to the appellant to vacate the premises. The appellant shall delive the vacant possession to the respondent within 3 months subject to his paying monthly rent as agreed by the parties.

M. Y. M. Appeal 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.