Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 479 of 1980, decided on 9th August, 1983.

(From the judgment dated 26‑1‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, passed in S. A. O. No. 167 of 1978).

‑‑‑‑ Art. 185 (3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15 (4)‑Second appeal‑No question of law arising from judgment of High Court in second appeal‑Order of High Court based upon correct appreciation of evidence in case Leave to appeal refused.

Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th August, 1983.

An order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against Suleman respondent at the instance of Haji Sharif Ahmad petitioner No. 1, and Munawar Ahmad, predecessor‑in‑interest of the remaining petitioners and upheld in appeal, was set aside by the High Court in the respondent's second appeal.

2. The High Court after carefully examining the evidence had reversed the finding on all the three issues, namely, (1) bona fide personal use of self and children, (2) default in payment of rent for September, 1975 onward and (3) damage to the property. On the question of personal use, the High Court noted that the landlord's own witness, A. W. I had stated that two shops owned by the petitioners had been lying vacant. The petitioners had not shown that the said two shops were not suitable for their use. On the question of default, the evidence showed that the tenant had remitted by money order a sum of Rs.100 on 13‑9‑1975 (Exh. R. 22) and Rs.240 on 26‑11‑1975 (Exh. R. 23). The rate of rent was Rs.70 p. m. The tenant's case was that as Rs.40 towards the rent for August, 1975 had already been paid in advance he had remitted the balance of Rs.30 of rent for August plus Rs.70 as rent for September, 1975 (Exh. R. 22) Upon refusal of landlord to receive it he had by the subsequent money order remitted rents also for October and November, 1975. This state ment was believed by the High Court. On the question of damage, the case of the landlord was that the respondent who had taken the shop for grocery business had installed Soda Water Factory in the shop which damaged the premises. But it was found from the statement of their own witness A. W. 1 that the Soda Water Factory bad been running for the last 8/9 years.

3. Obviously no question of law arises from the judgment of the High Court, which is otherwise based upon a correct appreciation of the evidence in the case. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

S. Q. 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.