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 No. 1‑P of 1982, decided on 17th February, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 31st October 1981 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in S. A. O. No. 60 of 19811.
S. 13 (2)
(vi)‑‑Eviction‑Personal requirement‑Courts below concurrently finding landlord primarily requiring house in suit for his son so that he could be accommodated therein after his marriage Contention that landlord admitted that in event of house being vacated he would give same to him would be daughter‑in‑law in lieu of her dower‑Copies of evidence regarding such aspect of case having not been filed with petition under consideration as required by Supreme Court Rules not possible, held, to hold requirement for use of landlord's son being contrary to alleged requirement for giving house as dower Impugned judgment, held, does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.
Fazal Elahi Khan, Advocate instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 17th February, 1982.
Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 31‑10‑1981 of the Peshawar High Court whereby a second appeal filed by the appellant (tenant) arising out of an order of his ejectment on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent‑landlord for the use of his house in question by his son, was dismissed. There are concurrent findings of the three learned Courts that the respondent's. son was going to be married and that the house in question was needed o accommodate the newly wedded couple. The learned counsel when faced with this difficulty, in support of this petition, contended that it was admitted in the evidence adduced by the landlord that if and when the house was vacated by the petitioner, it would be given by the respondent to the would‑be daughter‑in-l aw, in lieu of her dower. The copies of the evidence regarding this aspect of the case have not been filed with this petition notwithstanding the require ment in that behalf contained in the rules of the Supreme Court. It is therefore, not possible to hold, as argued by the learned counsel that the requirement for the use of the respondent's son is contradictory to the alleged requirement for giving the house as dower and further that the latter requirement is not covered by the statute. It appears, however, from the finding of the Courts below that the landlord primarily requires the house for the house of his son so that the latter could be accommodated therein after his marriage. That being so, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petitioner is allowed one month's time on undertaking to surrender possession voluntarily and also to pay rent for this period.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer