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. 898 of 1983, decided on 13th June 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑5‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in Review Application No. 37/83 in Writ Petition No. 1731 of 1983).
---Arts. 185 (3) & 199 read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15‑Ejectment on ground of bona fide personal requirement of premises by landlord‑Writ petition‑Judgment of High Court‑Not necessary to be recorded in any special form but should show that Court applied its mind and ground of decision as decipherable from terms of order‑Order impugned before High Court passed by Additional District Judge on question of fact‑High Court clearly indicating ground on which it refused writ, namely that con current finding of fact recorded by Courts below did not require any interference‑.Order of High Court upheld‑Leave to appeal refused.
Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others P L D 1970 S C 173 distinguished.
Pir Anwar Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 13th June, 1983.
The petitioner is a tenant of a shop under Respondent No. 1. In pursuance of an ejectment petition filed by Respondent No. 1 on the ground, inter alia, that he needed the shop for personal use of her son, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide his order dated 12‑10‑1982. He filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which failed. He then moved a writ petition in the High Court. This was dismissed in limine by an order passed in the following terms :‑
"There is a concurrent finding that the shop was bona fide required by the Respondent No. (1) for the use of her son. I can find no justifica tion for interfering with this finding."
Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition was disposed of, by a very short and summary Order which could not be termed as judgment as contemplated under Order XXI, rule 5 read with Order XLI, rule I i (these provisions, however, appear to be wholly irrelevant) and. therefore, the case deserves to be remanded for disposal in accordance with law. He relied on Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others (P L D 1970 S C 173) to contend that this Court had disproved the disposal of writ petitions by such summary orders.
We find no force in this petition. The precedent judgment of the Court dealt with the disposal of a writ petition which was filed against an order of a quasi‑judicial authority and in which an important legal question was involved but was dismissed simply with the observation "application, rejected as there is no substance in it". The situation here is altogether different. The order impugned before the High Court in this case was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, a judicial authority and not a quasi‑judicial authority. No legal question was involved and the matter involved was only a question of fact. Moreover, in this case, the learned Judge in the High Court has clearly indicated the ground on which he refused the writ, namely, that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below did not require any interference. We may also observe that while disposing of a writ petition it is not necessary to record a judgment in any special form all that is necessary is that it should be apparent there from that the Court has applied its mind and the ground of his decision is decipherable from the terms of his order.
This petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer