Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 822 of 1974, decided on 18th July, 1.979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑10‑1974, in Second Appeal from Original Order No. 178 of 1974).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑

‑‑ S. 13‑Eviction‑Not an iota of evidence existing to show as to what interest or right petitioner had in disputed shop‑Settlement Department on other band transferring shop to respondent landlord Respondent a regular transferee of property holding regular P. T. D. in his favour‑Respondent shown to have served regular notice on petitioner tenant but petitioner despite receipt of such notice not paying rent‑Courts below, held, perfectly justified in directing and maintain ing petitioner's eviction.

Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents

Date of hearing: 18th July 1979.

,

‑The dispute in this case is about a shop bearing No. 8/15, situated in Kanak Mandi, Sialkot. Abdur Rauf and others (Respondents/,landlords) filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, for ejectment of the petitioner from that property on the ground of non‑payment of rent. The application was accepted by the learned Rent Controller who by means of his order dated 25‑6‑1973 directed the eviction of the petitioner from that shop.

2. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 22‑7‑1974. The petitioner then filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 178/74 which met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 10‑10‑1974.

3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

4. It is conceded by the learned counsel that his client has not paid a single penny towards rent, for the position which he had‑taken in this case was that he is actually a co‑partner in and co‑transferee of the property and as such was not liable to pay rent. The Courts below, however, have found that there was not an iota of evidence to show as to what was the inter or right of the petitioner in the shop which had been transferred by td Settlement Department to the respondents/landlords. Even today the learned counsel could not point out anything from the record in support of the plea taken up by his client. On the other hand, the respondents/landlords have proved that they are regular transferees of the property from the Settlement Department and have obtained regular P T D in their favour. They served the regular notice or notices on the petitioner/tenant but despite their receipt he did not pay any rent. In the circumstances the Courts below were perfectly justified in directing and maintaining his eviction.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

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.