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. 581 of 1981, decided on 9th May, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16‑3‑1981 of the Lahore High 'Court in Writ Petition No. 779 of 1981). .
--Art. 185(3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Ejectment for bona fide personal need‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question where landlord‑petitioner contend ing by support. of ejectment application filed in earlier proceedings, that finding of Courts below were based on misconception, in fact landlord earlier having got shop vacated not on ground of personal need but on ground of reconstruction.
S. M. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 9th may, 1983.
‑‑The landlord's petition for ejectment of the tenant from his shop situated in Pakpattan Sharif has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner had got this very shop vacated earlier on the ground of personal need but, thereafter, he had given the said shop on rent to the respondents herein; and that he was again playing the same trick, namely, of getting the respondents herein ejected on the same false plea of personal need. The landlord's conduct indicated that, his pie, that the disputed premises was required by him for his personal need was not being made in good faith.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above findings of the Courts below are based on a misconception; that, in fact, the landlord had earlier on got the shop vacated not on the ground of personal need but on the ground of its reconstruction. In this connection, he drew our attention to the ejectment application filed in the said proceedings, He has further argued that the observations of the learned Judge in the High Court that two of his witnesses, namely, Shafi, P. W. 3, an Muhammad Ramzan, P. W. 4, bad also admitted that the shop in dispute had been got vacated earlier by the petitioner on the ground of persona need and that he had subsequently rented out the same to the respondent, was a misreading of the evidence of these two witnesses.
On the perusal of the available record we find that there is some force in these contentions. The case requires further consideration.
Leave to appeal. is, accordingly, granted Security Rs. 2,500.
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