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.
Writ Petition No. 3350 of 1983, decided on 10th October, 1983.
‑‑‑Art. 9‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (a) (i)‑Writ jurisdiction‑Conclusion drawn by Rent Controller and District Judge not perverse‑‑Both Courts below appraising evidence properly and fully taking same into consideration‑Interference by High Court in writ jurisdiction, held, not justified in circumstances.
‑‑Art. 9‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (a) (i)‑Ejectment‑‑Personal requirement‑Landlord heart patient, residing in upper portion of disputed property needed ground floor for residence under medical advice‑Testimony of landlord as regards illness remaining unshaken‑Finding of Courts below, held, not suffering from non‑consideration or misappreciation of material evidence‑Petition dismissed.
‑‑Art. 9‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. 1, r. 10‑Party, impleading of‑Party filing application for impleading himself as respondent alleging that other respondent entered into agreement to sell house to him‑Writ petition not admitted, application for impleading as party, held, became infructuous, in circumstances.
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh for Respondent No. 1.
B. A. Chaudhry for Applicant .
Date of hearing : 10th October, 1983 .
The respondent filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner from a portion of property bearing No. 166‑A, Mayo Road, Dharampura, Lahore, on various grounds including personal need. The petitioner opposed the application. Issues were framed. The parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective averments. The learned Rent Controller, Lahore, respondent No. 3, accepted the application and passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner vide his order, dated 11th of May, 1983, deciding the issue pertaining to personal need against the petitioner.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which too was decided against him by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, respondent No. 2, vide his order, dated 26th of July, 1983. The petitioner has assailed the validity of both the orders in this writ petition.
3. It is contended that the finding of the trial as well as the lower appellate Courts on the issue relating to the personal need is vitiated by misappreciation of evidence. I directed the petitioner to file certified copies of statements of the witnesses examined by the parties before the learned Rent Controller. Today certified copies of the statements given by respondent No. 1 and his two witnesses have been filed. Copies of statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner have not been brought on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated in his arguments that he would rely only on the statements of respondent No. 1 and his witnesses and it is not necessary for the case of the petitioner to file copies of the evidence led by him.
4. I have perused the statements of respondent No. 1 and his witnes ses. The conclusion drawn by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge is not perverse. Both the Courts below have properly appraised the evidence and fully taken it into consideration. Respondent No. 1 is residing in the upper portion of the property in dispute. His plea is that he is a heart patient and under medical advice be needs the ground floor for his residence because climbing stairs is hazardous for his health. He deposed to this plea in his statement. He was cross‑examined at length but only two questions were put to him with regard to illness. His testimony as regards his illness remained unshaken. Therefore, there is no basis for holding that the finding of the two Courts below suffers from non‑consideration or misappreciation of mate rial evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons. I do not find any valid reason to justify interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. ,Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
6. One Muhammad Idrees has filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as a respondent in this writ petition alleging that respondent No. 1 had entered into an agreement to sell the house to him. Since the writ petition has not been admitted, this application has become infructuous. Hence, the same is also dismissed.
M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer