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. 937 of 1980, decided on 9th May, 1983.
(From the order dated 27‑.4‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed on S. A. O. No. 19 of 1973).
‑‑ Art, 185(3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Bona fide personal use of landlord.‑Question one of fact and concurrently concluded against petitioner by all three Courts below‑Held, hardly any scope for interference by Supreme Court.
Malik Muhammad Ashhab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 9th May, 1983.
The petitioner is a tenant against whom an order of ejectment was passed on the ground of bona fide personal use of the landlord. The decision has been upheld in the first appeal before the District Judge, Gujrat, and in second appeal before the Lahore High Court. Since the question is one of fact and has been concurrently concluded against the petitioner by all the three Courts below, there is hardly any scope for interference by this Court.
2. However, it is urged that the Rent Controller had erred in deciding the matter without first disposing of an application filed by the petitioner before him for adducing additional evidence. The contention which had for the first time been taken before the learned District Judge has been dealt with by both the appellate Courts below and rejected. The learned judge of the High Court after scrutiny of the record noticed that the application and the accompanying affidavit, had been placed "at fag end of the file and had not been numbered", that no such ground had been taken in the memorandum of the first appeal nor had any application been made for further inquiry under section 15(3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The learned Judge, therefore, agreed with the first appellate Court that the application had been "manoeuvred to be brought on the file of the trial Court" after the appeal had been admitted for regular hearing.
3. We thus find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed:
M. Z. M.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer