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. 655 of 1979, decided on 3rd May, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 4th August, 1979, in S. A. O. No. 538/79).
‑‑ Art. 185 (3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (3) (ii) (a)‑Ejectment on ground of bona fide requirement of landlady‑Finding of fact by Courts below that landlady bona fide required disputed shop for her husband based on evidence brought on record‑Held, cannot be interfered with by Supreme Court.
Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana. Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Allah Nawaz Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 3rd May, 1980.
This is petition by Ghulam Mohyuddin petitioner who eras directed to be evicted from the shop in dispute by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 3rd June, 1979 on the ground that it was needed by the spouse (husband) of the respon dent (landlady). for his personal requirement/use inasmuch as be was doing business in a rented shop and wanted to shift to do business in the present shop. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the learned District Judge on 8th July, 1979 and his second appeal being S. A. O. No. 538/79 also met the same fate as it was dismissed by the High Court on 4th August, 1979.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding o the Courts below on the bona fide requirement of the landlady (to be more precise of her husband) was not correct. The contention has no merit. All three Courts on the subject have found against the petitioner on the evidence brought on record and on our part we feel no justification to interfere in this factual matter or to differ from them in any manner. It has come on the record that the husband of landlady is already doing business which shows that plea of doing business on the part of the husband is not a new enterprise to be now embarked upon by him for a the first time. Similarly the plea that the shop already in his occupation is a rented shop supports his case further when he says he wants to shift to the present shop. It has further been proved that the husband of the landlady had earlier another shop with him from which he was evicted and thereafter, started doing business in the rented shop presently in h1S occupation. If in order to avoid such like constant threats of eviction the present shop is required by him for personal use, his need is quite genuine and perfectly bona fide.
3. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, we grant four months to the petitioner to vacate the shop subject to his continuing to pay the rent regularly in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer