Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 39‑R of 1982, decided on 9th March, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 11‑1‑1982 of the Lahore High Court Lahore, in Writ Petition No, 6 of 1982),

---S. 13‑Eviction‑Bona fide requirements‑Rent Controller and first appellate Court being conscious of requirement of law and landlord having raised plea of bona fide requirement, technical point as to landlord having not used expression "good faith" or "bona fide" in his pleadings, held, does not justify interference by Supreme Court and refusal to exercise its writ Jurisdiction by High Court also justified.

Mian Sher Alam, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 9th March, 1982.

Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 11‑1‑1982 of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition arising out of an order of a learned Rent Controller directing eviction of the petitioner on ground of personal requirement of the respondent landlord which was affirmed by the appellate Court, was dismissed.

The learned counsel, apart from raising some factual pleas, contended that the expressions "good faith or bona fide" not having been used in the pleadings of the landlord, the issues framed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, a necessary requirement of law was ignored, therefore, regardless of the question whether the High Court should not have interfered on question of fact enough justification was made out for exercise of the judicial review. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Notwith standing the technical point raised by him, the learned Controller as also the first appellate Court were conscious with regard to the requirement of law. Similarly, respondent‑landlord did raise the plea of bona fide requirement, the technical point with regard to use of certain language does not justify interference by this Court, the refusal by the High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction was amply justified. This petition is dismissed.

The learned counsel prayed for time to vacate the shop in question. One month's time has been allowed on an undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner after consulting his client that he would surrender the possession to the landlord voluntarily without any further proceedings and would also pay them the monthly rent for this period. With these observations, this petition 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.