Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 459 of 1978, decided on 2nd April 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑6‑1978 in S. A. O. No. 270 of 1978).

----Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance (VI of 1959), S. 13(3) (a) (ii)‑ Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of landlord‑Courts below accepting statement of land lord‑Case depending on appreciation of evidence‑No legal or procedural error in concurrent findings of Courts below pointed out Leave to appeal declined.

Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1979.

(1) Ahmad Din and (2) Allah Ditta (here inafter called the landlords) filed on application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for eviction of Munir Ahmad (hereinafter called the tenant) frog the shop bearing No. P‑51, situated in Mandar Gali No. 3, Ward No. I Faisalabad, on the ground of personal need because Ahmad Din landlord wanted to do cloth merchant business jointly with his brother Alla Ditta, through his son Manzoor Hussain. The learned Rent Controller accused this petition by means of his order dated 17‑11‑1977 and directed the eviction o the tenant/petitioner.

2. The tenant/petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 24‑4‑1978.

3. The tenant/petitioner filed a Second Appeal beasing No. S. A. O. 270 of 1978 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 28‑6‑1978. The tenant/petitioner has come up in a petition for special appeal leave to appeal against the, same to this. Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner‑tenant has argued that the findings of the Courts below that the respondents required the shop in dispute in good faith for their personal use, vie. for use of Ahmad Din for doing business through his son Manzoor Hussain was not correct because the aforesaid Manzoor Hussain was not produced as a witness in the case. The contention has no merit. It has come on record that Ahmad Din (landlord) had retire from service due to invalidity because of failure of his vision, and that on t of his sons Manzoor Hussain was jobless and that Ahmad Din wanted to earn his livelihood by putting his son into the cloth merchant business. Ahmad Din duly appeared in the witness‑box and deposed about the aforesaid fact and circumstances. All the Courts below accepted the statement of Ahmad Din especially when there was nothing to shake his credit. The case depends on the appreciation of the evidence and the learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal or procedural error in the concurrent findings of all the Courts below.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

S. Q. 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.