Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑19 of 1981, decided on 22nd August 1981.

(On Appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 5th November 1980, in Second Appeal No. 229 of 1973).

‑‑S. 13 (3) (a) (i) (a)‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3) Ejectment of tenant ordered by Courts below on ground of bona fide requirement of premises by landlord‑Tenant arguing that landlord has another plot which was being used as Eidgah and could also be utilised by landlord‑High Court considering point regarding bona fides and taking into account all relevant circumstances but decision on question with regard to possible use of Eidgah not considered necessary because property in dispute was separate from property being used as Eidgah‑ Question of bona fide requirement stands, held, concluded No justification to re‑open same‑Leave refused.

Jan Muhammad Dawood, Advocate and Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 22nd August, 1981.

‑Leave to Appeal has been sought from Judgment dated. 5‑11‑1980 of the Sind High Court whereby a second appeal arising out of order of eviction of the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1.959, was dismissed.

The learned Rent Controller found the ground of bona fide require ment as established. On confirmation of this finding, the petitioner's first appeal was dismissed. The contention raised from the petitioner's side was that the requirement of the Respondents/landlords was not bona fide. One of the grounds urged on behalf the Petitioner before the High Court was that the Respondents/landlords had mentioned the property in dispute as the only premises owned by them which was required for their use. But, during the trial it transpired that another plot of land which was being utilized as an Eidgah could also be utilized by the Respondent/landlords for the same purpose which was made the basis of the eviction application. It was also argued that the Eidgah could be used otherwise than as an Eidgah because there was nothing in the relevant law to prohibit such a use of the Eidgah by the Respon dents.

The learned Single Judge in the High Court considered the point regarding bona fides of the respondents/landlords‑ and took into account all the relevant circumstances in this behalf. It was not necessary to decide the other wider question with regard to the possible uses of an Eidgah because the property in dispute in this case is separate from the property which is being utilized as an Eidgah. After hearing the lear ned counsel, we do not find any justification for re‑opening the question of the bona fide requirement of the Respondents as it stands concluded by unexceptionable concurrent findings of fact. This petition is accord ingly dismissed.

Leave 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.