Find a Lawyer

BARKAT ALI‑Respondent

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 579

of 1978, decided on ;1st March, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 29‑10‑1978 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in S. A. O. No. 566 of 1978).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--‑

---Art. 185 (3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(2) (3) (ii) (vi), (5) & (5‑A)‑Ejectment on ground of reconstruction‑Contention that meagre income of landlord and no saving, landlord financially not in position to reconstruct property Held, landlord if unable to reconstruct property after ejectment, penal provisions of S. 13(5) (5‑A) exist to protect interest of tenant so ejected‑Leave refused.

Ch. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Rao Dastgir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao, Muhammad Yousaf Khan for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 29th and 31st March, 1979.

‑This petition for leave to appeal calls in question the judgment dated 29‑10‑19‑18 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's second appeal (S. A. O. No. 556 of 1978) was dismissed and orders of his ejectment were upheld.

By an ejectment petition dated 5‑5‑1978, the respondent sought eviction of the petitioner from the shop in his occupation for personal requirement and reconstruction, grounds available to him under section 13(3) (ii) and section 13(2) (vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. One of the grounds, namely, of personal requirements had also been raised in an earlier ejectment petition which was withdrawn and the respondent was not allowed to agitate it in the present proceedings. The petitioner's ejectment was, however, ordered on the second ground of reconstruction. This was maintained in first appeal as also by the High Court in the petitioner's second appeal. In seeking leave to appeal, it is submitted that under the law, after its amend ment in 1965, it is essential to establish that the landlord's requirement of rented premises for reconstruction was reasonable and backed by good faith. But no such finding has been recorded in the case of the petitioners. In this connection, reference is made to the respondent's evidence before the Rent Controller and to the connotation of the expression "good faith" given in the General Clauses Act and Wharton's Law Dictionary.

We notice that although the learned Judge in the High Court referred to Messrs Amir Din v. Seth Adamji (1969 S C M R 131) to the effect that the bona fides of the landlord are not relevant when he seeks ejectment on the ground of reconstruction, he has, after discussing some evidence on the point given a finding that there is urgent and bona fide need of the respondent for the reconstruction of the shop in question. The contention of the petitioner that all the Courts below had not examined his case in the light of the law as it stands, is, therefore, misconceived in so far as the High Court is concerned, for it has clearly given a finding in terms of clause (vi) of sec tion 13(2) in its amended form. Both the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge have at least given a finding that the shop in question was reasonably and in good faith required by the respondent for reconstruction.

It was also submitted that there is evidence to the effect that the respon dent on account of his meagre salary and no savings, was not in a financial position to carry out the reconstruction of the shop. If it be so and the respondent in fact does not reconstruct the shop, the ground on which h has procured the ejectment of the petitioner, the penal provisions of sub sections (5) and (5‑A) of section 13 exist to protect the interest of the tenant.

The petition fails and is dismissed hereby. However, the tenant is granted four months' time to vacate the premises provided he continues to pay the monthly rent.

M. Z. M. 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.