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. 41/R of 1982, decided on 24th March 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 13‑12‑1981 of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition 296 of 1981).
---S. 13(4)‑Eviction‑Requirement for personal use‑Rent Controller discussing evidence produced by parties and coming to conclusion of shop being required by respondent landlord for his personal use and such respondent also being owner of shop in question‑Petitioner proved to have deposited rent for some period in name of respondent landlord in National Bank‑Respondent landlord, in circumstances, held, cannot be said to be not owner of shop in dispute‑Petition dismissed as without merit.
M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th March 1982.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court dated 13‑12‑1981 in Writ Petition 'No. 296 of 1981.
2. The facts which are mentioned in the petition briefly are that the petitioner is a tenant under respondent No. 3 of a shop from which his eviction was sought under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance on the ground that the ' respondent is running his business in a rented shop and the owner of that shop intends to eject him and therefore he needs the said shop for his personal use. This petition was contested by the present petitioner which gave rise to as many as 13 issues framed by the Rent Controller who, after recording the evidence of the parties, ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question mainly on the ground that the respondent requires the shop for his personal use in good faith.
3. This finding was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal which was heard by the District Judge, Malakand who also concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the shop in question was required, by the respondent in good faith for his personal use, and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then challenged the finding of the two Courts in the writ petition on the ground that the respondent has failed to establish his bona fide requirement of the shop. The learned High Court after perusing the entire evidence found that the shop was required by the respondent in good faith and that it was the concurrent finding of the two Courts, and thus it calls for no interference, and dismissed the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's ejectment was sought on the ground, given in the notice served on him by respondent No. 3 on 20‑10‑1979, to renew the agreement which meant that the respondent did not, in fact, require the shop for his personal use and subsequently setting up the plea of personal use was mala fide The learned counsel further contended that the shop originally belonged to Major Shah Tamroz which the respondent No. 3 had acquired through exchange and in the absence of any registered document such a sale/exchange cannot be presumed. The plea of personal requirement was, therefore, not ‑proved on the record; that the respondent No. 3 admittedly was in occupation of a shop within the same urban area, and no evidence was produced to show that the landlord of respondent No. 3 was trying to evict him from the shop; and lastly that application for ejectment cannot be adjudicated upon by a Civil Judge nor a case for the recovery of arrears of rent can be entertained by the Rent Controller. The order of ejectment was, therefore, not passed by a competent Court.
5. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel but do not find any force in them. The learned Rent Controller has discussed the evidence produced by the parties in his judgment and has come to the conclusion that the shop was required by the respondent No. 3 for his person use and that he was the owner of the shop in question as the petitioner deposited the rent from 17‑4‑1979 in the name of the respondent No. 3 in the National Bank of Pakistan through Bank Challans dated 9‑3‑1980 an 16‑4‑1980 placed on the record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 was not the owner of the shop in question. There is n merit in this petition, which is accordingly 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