Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 110/R of 1980, decided on 15th October, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 31‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in S. A. O. No. 721 of 1979).

----S. 13(3)(a)(ii)‑Lower Courts finding landlord in occupation of rented premises and having no other premises of his own‑Landlord of Petitioner landlord also found to have called upon petitioner landlord to vacate premises‑Premises, held, justifiably required for bona fide personal use‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M: Afzal Siddiqui Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th October, 1980.

‑This petition is by the unsuccessful tenant whose eviction was sought on the twin grounds of default in payment of rent and for personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller dismissed his application but the first appellate Court reversed this order and granted eviction which order was maintained in the second appeal by the High Court. The findings of the first appellate Court as well as the High Court are based on the evidence that the respondent‑landlord was occupying a rented premises, the landlord of which, had called upon him to vacate the premises and that he had no other premises to go to. This finding is sought to be challenged before us on the ground that the respondent‑landlord did not possess the requisite bona fides for the landlord was carrying on business of manufacturing jewellery. While the premises in dispute is in Sarafa bazaar where jewellery is sold distinct from being manufactured. The learned counsel however conceded that the landlord had no other premises to go to and it must, therefore, follow that he had no choice but to seek posses sion of the only premises available to him. Furthermore, there is evidence that the landlord intend not only to use the premises in question for the purpose of manufacturing jewellery but also for selling jewellery. In this view of the matter there is no room for interference by this Court with the finding arrived at by the first appellate Court.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is, with the consent of the learned counsel, appearing for respondent caveator, allowed one month's time to vacate the premises.

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.