Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 126‑8 of 1982, decided on 20th November, 1982.

(Against the judgment and order of Peshawar High Court in S. A. O. No. 32/D of 1979).

‑‑‑S.13 (2) (vi) & (3) (is)‑Requirement for personal use and reconstruc tion‑Landlord's family consisting of three wives, fourteen daughters, and three sons‑Landlord having no house to live in city where house in dispute lay‑Utility of premises in dispute impaired by occupant tenant by installing oil extracting machines and also by making altera tions‑Plan duly sanctioned by Local Authority for reconstruction of premises placed on record and duly proved‑Evidence on record, held, sufficient to warrant finding of fact recorded by all authorities and mere fact of landlord having not appeared in witness‑box no ground for rejecting claim.

Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate on Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th November 1982

Karim Bakhah, a tenant under orders of ejectment seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Pesahawar High Court dated 8th of June, 1982, whereby his second appeal against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and upheld in appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was the transferee of the disputed property in Dera Ismail Khan. The premises are said to be in possession of Karim Bakhsh and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In the first round of litigation when the respon dent No. 1 sought the eviction of the petitioner and others he failed in the High Court as his application was considered to be premature in view of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 which provided to the occupants protection against eviction for a period of six years after notice of transfer. The landlord again sued the petitioner and other tenants for eviction on the ground that he needed the property for his own family and had the plan sanctioned from the local authority for its reconstruction and that the petitioner had damaged the property. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered ejectment of the peti tioner. The District Judge as the first appellate authority upheld it. The High Court in second appeal declined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord had not himself appeared to state about his bona fide need or his intention to reconstruct the property. His attorney appeared and made a statement and that should not be considered sufficient. It was also said that reliance should not have been placed on the first round of litigation wherein the application of the landlord for evicting the petitioner was held to be premature.

As regards the personal need of the landlord, we find that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Rent Controller that the family of the landlord respondent consists of three wives, fourteen daughters and three sons and that he had no house to live in Dera Ismail Khan proper, though he was conduct mg his business there. It was also found on good evidence that by installing oil extracting machines in the premises and making alterations its utility had been impaired. The plan duly sanctioned by the local authority for it reconstruction was also placed on record and duly proved. In the circumstances the evidence on record was sufficient to warrant the finding of fact recorded by all the authorities and the mere fact that the landlord did not appear in the witness‑box was no ground for rejecting the claim. Leave to appeal‑is therefore refused.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.