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. 575 of 1979, decided on 2nd April, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 9‑4‑1979 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 17 of 1978).
‑‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Personal need of landlord‑Statement of counsel for landlord that landlord "had been carrying on his business of... for 7/8 years and had given shop in question on rent to tenant for last 4/S years‑High Court on account of such statement holding that landlord had already been carrying on his business when he gave shop in question on rent and landlord's assertion that shop was needed by his personal use could not be accepted‑Relevant record showing reverse of what was found by High Court‑Evidence prima facie appearing to have been misread matter requiring further examina tion in circumstances‑Leave to appeal granted.
Rashid Ahmad Ch., Advocate Supreme Curt and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Abdul Manan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad; Advo cate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1983.
The appellate authority (Additional District judge) had accepted the plea of the petitioner herein that he required his shop (situate in Sialkot) and rented out to the respondent for his personal use and ordered his ejectment. On second appeal, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court reversed this finding mainly on the assump tion that the learned counsel for the petitioner herein on a query made by the learned Judge had stated that the petitioner herein "had been carrying on his business of import of stainless steel sheets for the last 7/8 years and he had given the shop in dispute on rent to the appellant (respondent herein) for the last 4/5 years'". On account of this reply the learned Judge thought that as the petitioner had already been carrying on his business when he gave the shop in dispute on rent to the respondent herein his assertion that he really needed the shop for his personal use could not be accepted.
Our attention has been drawn to the relevant evidence and the posi tion emerging there from appears to be the reverse of what the learned Single Judge has thought it to be. As the evidence, prima facie, appear to have been misread the case requires further examination.
Leave is granted.
Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
The appeal to be put up for hearing as soon as it is complete.
M. Z. M. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer