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. 61 of 1981, decided on 4th April, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 24‑12‑1980 in S. A. O. No. 594 of 1977).
‑‑ Ss. 13(3) & 15(4)‑Ejectment on ground of personal use‑Evidence conclusively proving that landlord required shop in dispute bona fide for his personal use and occupation‑No interference called for.
M A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th April, 1981.
.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 24‑12‑1980 dismissing peti tioner's second appeal and thereby confirming the order of the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, by which the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to his landlord, respondent herein.
The Rent Controller rejected respondent's, applicaton for petitioner's ejectment but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur accepted respondent's plea that he bona fide required the demised premises for personal use and his view was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the High Court.
Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the respondents had simultaneously prayed for enhancement of rent and this by itself was sufficient to prove that his plea that he bona fide required the premises for personal use was not maintainable inasmuch as respondent owned 9 shops in the same locality out of which two are lying vacant and hence his plea that he required the demised premises for his personal use is mala fide for this reason also.
Both these submissions have been rejected by the learned Single Judge in the High Court for the cogent reason that "the evidence have conclusively proved that the respondent required the shop in dispute bona fide for his personal use and occupation" and that the petitioner had also failed to substantiate the assertion that "the shops referred to by him in fact belonged to the sons of the respondents".
There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner requests that petitioner may be granted two months' time to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent as he has to make arrangements for shifting of his business to some other place. The request is granted provided the petitioner deposits rent in Court in terms of the orders already, passed in the case.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer