Find a Lawyer

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20-6-1982, passed in W. P. No. 4157 of 1981).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-

S. 13(3) (a) (i)-Ejectment from house on ground of personal need for use of landlord's children-Landlord's application and evidence led 9n issue clearly showing that house was meant to be vacated for residence of landlord's children-Mere use of word "use" instead of "occupation" in application-Held, makes no substantial difference.

Shaukat Haroon, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1983.

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Sh. Mansoor Ahmad petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20-6-1982, dismissing his writ petition in a rent matter.

2. The facts leading to the present petition, briefly, are that Mst. Hajiran Bibi the landlady (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) filed an ejectment application against the petitioner from her house on the ground of default; conversion of the building from residential to non-residential; personal need for use of the landlady's children; causing damage to the building and impairing its value.

The learned Rent Controller rejected three of the aforementioned grounds but accepted the application on the ground of personal need and conversion from residential to non-residential premises and ordered petitioner's eviction.

Mansoor Ahmad petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 3-6-1981. He then went up to the High Court through Writ Petition (No. 4157 of 1981) which met the same fate and was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition.

3. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that while asking for the vacation of the building in question for the residence of her children she had used the words relateable to nonresidential' building: To understand that contention it would be necessary to reproduce wording of the relevant section 13(3)(a)(i)(a), which reads as follows:

"Section 13(3)(a)-A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:

(i) in the case of a residential building if

(a) he requires it in good faith for his own occupation of any of his children.

Section 13(3)(a)(ii)(a) reads as follows:

"Section 13(3). A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession

(ii) in the case of a non-residential building or a scheduled building or rented land, if;

(a) he requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of his male children" . . . . . . ."

4. The petitioner's contention is that in her ejectment application they, respondent-landlady stated that she wanted to get the house in question vacated for the use' of her children instead of saying that she wanted it for occupation' of her children.

The contention is, however, entirely misconceived because from a reading, of the application and the evidence led on the issue in question it is abundantly clear that she meant, inter alia, to get the house vacated for the residence of her children. The use of the word, therefore, make no substantial difference.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit whatsover.

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.