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 Appeal No. 121 of 1982, decided on 3rd November, 1982.
(From the judgment dated 7‑7‑1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2616 of 1982).
‑‑ Art. 185 (3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15(3)‑ Ejectment from shop on ground of personal requirement of landlord‑Contention that judg ment of appellate Court, upholding ejectment, was vitiated by absence of reasons and that case be remanded to appellate Court for re‑writing judgment‑Landlord found to have brought ample evi dence to support relevant issue and tenant himself admitting that landlord did not own any other shop to carry on his business Held, remand of case to appellate Court for purpose of rewriting judgment would, in circumstances, be an exercise in futility and that appellant's contention was without force.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Atta‑ur‑Rahman, Advocate‑on‑,Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
Respondent No. 7 in person.
Date of hearing : 3rd January, 1982.
‑This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the refusal by the High Court to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with the order of eviction from the disputed shop passed by the Rent Controller and maintained in appeal.
2. The respondents/landlords had urged default in payment of rent, requirement in good faith for personal use and damage to the property but had succeeded only on the ground of personal use. The case of the appellant before the High Court was that the judgment of the appellate Court was vitiated by absence of reasons. The appellate Court' had, after recording the arguments of both sides, straightway concluded the matter in the words, "The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is without force and the same is dismissed". In fact, it had not at all discussed the con tentions put forth before it. Nevertheless, since the parties had been heard and the record was before the appellate Court the High Court came to the view that the requirement of section 15(3) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance had been met and in view of the concurrent finding on a question of fact, it declined to interfere.
3. The contention before us, too, is based on the criticism of the, appellate judgment and it has been urged that the matter should be remanded to the appellate Court for re‑writing the judgment. Since the parties had been heard and the record was before the appellate Court, it can be presumed that the Court had applied its mind in reaching its decision notwithstanding the fact that express reasons for the same have not been given in the judgment. However, we do not approve of judgment by a trial or appellate Court which does not reflect a proper application of mind to the case of the parties and records the reasons for the decision. It was for this reason that leave was granted in the case.
4. We have now gone through the evidence and find that the land. lords had brought ample evidence to support the relevant issue. Feroze Din (A. W. 3), one of the respondents landlords, had deposed that his sons were grown‑up, that he had no other shop and that therefore, he carried on his business on a trolley (rehri). In this, he was supported by his witness Allah Bakhsh (A. W., 1) and Muhammad Yunis (A. W. 2). 'The appellant, appearing as R. W. 3, had himself admitted that none of the respondents owned another shop and that they were doing their business on rehris. On this evidence, the issue must be held to have been correctly decided. A remand for the purpose of re‑writing the judgment by the appellate Court, therefore, would be nothing but an exercise in futility. There is, thus, no force in this appeal which we accordingly dismiss. There shall be no order as to costs.
S- Q. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer