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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 159‑R/1981, decided or, 12th October, 1981.
(On petition against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court date; 24th June, 1981).
‑‑S. 13‑Ejectment on ground of reconstruction‑Landlord produc ing notice of local authority to show that building requiring imme diate attention and getting plan sanctioned for reconstruction tenant not proving that efforts of landlords in that direction mis conceived and that landlord has no capacity and means to accomplish that end‑Leave to appeal refused‑Tenant occupying commercial premises allowed four months time for handing over possession to make consequential adjustment.
Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Mirza Anwar Beg Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Siddique Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 12th October, 1981.
The petitioners are the tenants of three separate shops in a composite building known as Khawaja Building Abbottabad belonging to respondent No. 1. They seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 24th June 1981 whereby their second appeal against the eviction order against then was dismissed in limine.
2. The landlord on 25th April, 1979 filed an application seeking the eviction of the petitioners on the ground that he wanted to demolish the shops, wanted to reconstruct them, and had obtained from the local Autho rities the necessary sanction of the plans. It was also pleaded that the build ing was dilapidated and he had received notices from the local Authority, for its demolition or extensive repairs. The petitioners contested this need of the landlord and contended that the building was not in such a state of disrepair as to require demolition and reconstruction The notice sent by the Municipal Committee with respect to it was said to be mala fide and to have been procured to strengthen the case for their ejectment. The landlord's need was not, in view of the petitioners, reasonable and bona fide. The learned Rent Controller on 170 February, 1980 upheld the claim of the landlord, considered it bona fide and reasonable and ordered the eviction of the petitioners. Their appeal before the District Judge was rejected on 24th April, 1981. The High Court also dismissed their second appeal in limine on 24th June, 1981.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the claim of the landlord was neither bona fide nor reasonable and the effort was to get the tenant ejected so as to obtain higher rent from the same property. In any case, even the reconstruction was so planned as to exclude the ousted tenants from claiming any portion of it.
4. All the three authorities dealing with the claim of the landlord have held that his demand was reasonable and bona fide. In doing so no part of evidence have been miss‑read or ignored. The report of the Commissioner which is sought to be utilized by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertains to a matter which was not within his mandate and it can, at best, be said to be an opinion and not reporting of a fact. The High Court has attended to its relevance and utility and rejected it with regard to the state of the building.
5. We find that the claim of the landlord that he wanted to recon struct the property, had to be examined in the light of the material of the record. He had produced the notice of the local Authority to show that the building was in such a state as to require immediate attention. He had also applied for reconstruction of the same and obtained sanc tion from the local Authority. In cross‑examining the landlord no effort was made to show that his efforts in that direction was misconceived or not supported by his capacity and means to accomplish the end. In the circumstances we find that the judgments of the authorities are no open to interference on any ground whatsoever. The leave to appeal is therefore, refused. However, since the petitioners are occupants of com mercial premises and have to make consequential adjustments, we allow them a period of four months subject to their payment of rent and Ob serving the other terms of the tenancy, for handing over the vacant possession of the shops to the respondent‑landlord.
Petition dismissed:
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer