Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.552/R of 1983, decided on 2nd November, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 7‑6‑1983 passed in writ petition No.182 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of premises by landlord‑‑Courts below concurrently finding that respondent‑landlord required property in dispute for his personal use‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Kh. M.Y. Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M. Hanif Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1983.

This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 7‑6‑1983 passed in Writ Petition No.182 of 1983, against the ejectment of the petitioner from Shop No.63/7 Bank Road, Rawalpindi.

2. Petitioner occupied Shop No.63/7 Bank Road, Rawalpindi since about 16 years as tenant under the respondents. Ejectment petition was filed in the Court of the learned Rent Controller for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 3 a lawyer needed the shop for use as his office. The ejectment proceedings were contested by the petitioner but the learned Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment on 14‑9‑1982. Appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed by the District Judge, Rawalpindi per order, dated 9‑4‑1983. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

3. The only ground which the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us is that the premises in question was not required by the respondent in good faith for use as his office because the suit premises is situate in a busy commercial area where lawyers' offices are not housed in shops and particularly in Saddar Area where a number of lawyers have their offices but the same are on the first floor; that the absence of good faith on the part of respondent is established from the fact that the petitioner had offered, in all the Courts below, to construct a room for the office of respondent No.3 on the first floor of the petitioner's shop at his own cost. We have considered these arguments but we do not find any force in them. All the Courts below have found that the respondent required the property in question for his personal use. The petition is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Two months time is allowed to hand over vacant possession.

S, Q.

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.