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. 345 of 1975, decided on 28th October, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑2‑1975 in S. A. O. No. 38 of 1967).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑
‑‑ S. 13 (2)(iv)‑Eviction‑Causing damage to property‑Tenant alleg ed to have constructed two walls and a roof of corrugated sheets thereby closing rear door of shop and passage to rear doors of other shops‑All Courts below concurrently finding contention to be not sustainable on facts brought on record‑High Court coming to conclusion of construction having been made on a portion of street and not on property itself and no damage having been caused to property or its utility‑Questions raised, held, questions of fact and High Court does not go into such question particularly in face of concurrent findings of Courts below.‑[Question of fact].
Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 28th October, 1980.
‑A shop in building No. S‑64‑R‑10 Anarkali, Lahore is in occupation of Ahmed Saeed respondent, as a tenant. He is said to have constructed two walls and a roof of corrugated sheets in it closing the rear door of the shop and the passage to the rear doors of other shops. The petitioner consequently moved an application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for his ejectment for having made construc tion, which impaired the usefulness of the property rented out to him. This application was rejected on 14‑3‑1966. An appeal filed against it was rejected by the Additional District Judge on 17‑11-1966 and S. A. O. No. 38 of 1967 met the same fate in the Lahore High Court on 26‑2‑1975. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the construction, had, in fact, impaired the value of the property and that damage had bee caused to it. There is a concurrent finding of fact of the three Courts below that this contention is not sustainable by the facts brought on the record, In fact the High Court has come to the conclusion that the construction has been made on a portion of the street and not the property itself and that there is no proof that any damage has been caused to the property or to its utility.
3. These are pure questions of fact and this Court does not go into them particularly when the three Courts below have agreed. The petition is, there fore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer