Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 105/R of 1983, decided on 10th October 1983.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4th May, 1983 passed in Writ Petition No. 2992 of 1982).

‑‑‑ Art. 185 (3) read with Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 and West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959, S. 13‑Ejectment on ground of personal bona fide need of landlord‑Appellate Court concurring in Rent Controller's finding that evidence produced by petitioner/tenant was "highly unbelievable Order of High Court holding that both authorities below had not accepted tenant's plea not suffering from any error‑No grievance taken in writ petition that appellate Court had not adverted to particular issue‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtia4 Muhammad Khan Advocate on-record- for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 10th October, 1983.

The petitioner, a tenant, is aggrieved by the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his writ petition against an order of ejectment passed by the appellate Court.

2. The landlord had sought the petitioner's ejectment from the rented premises on the ground of bona fide personal need. The petitioner's defence was that the premises having been rented in 1973 for a period of 20 years and Rs.90,000 . Having been paid as security, the ejectment application was premature and not maintainable and that even otherwise it was mala fide inasmuch as it had been filed with an eye to enhancement of the rent. The Controller, apart from framing an issue on the question of the landlord's requirement in good faith (issue No. 1 ), framed two other issues in the light of the petitioner's pleas, that is, whether the application was premature (issue No. 2) and whether it had been filed with mala fide intentions (issue No. 3). He found issue No. 2 in favour of the landlord but as he held against him on the other two issues, he rejected the applica tion. In the landlord's appeal, however, the findings on issues 1 and 3 were reversed and an order of rejectment was passed against the peti tioner. The petitioner challenged the order by filing a writ petition. The recital of the facts in his judgment dated 4‑5‑1983 shows that the learned Judge of the High Court was under the impression that the Rent Controller, too, had ordered the ejectment but he corrected the error on 21‑5‑1983 on an application moved by the landlord and in the presence of the petitioner.

3. Mr. A. K. Brohi appearing for the petitioner contends that the High Court was wrong in holding that both the Rent Controller and the appellate Court had come to a concurrent finding on issue No. 2 whereas the appellate Court had in fact not adverted to that issue, observing that the same had not been assailed by the petitioner. This, according to learned counsel, it did on a misunderstanding of the law that neither appeal nor cross‑objections having been filed by the petitioner, he could not agitate the finding on that issue. The appellate Court had observed :

"Issue No. 2 having been held in favour of the appellant (respon dent No. 1) and its findings have not been assailed by the respondent (petitioner), therefore, it is not in controversy before this Court.

Nevertheless, later in its judgment, it had adverted to the issue and had con. curred in the Controller's finding holding that the evidence produced by the petitioner was "highly unbelievable". The High Court was, therefore, not to any error in holding that both the authorities below had not accepted the petitioner's plea. In any case, no grievance had been taken in the writ petition that the appellate Court had not adverted to issue No. 2. The contention, therefore, fails.

4. Another contention raised is that the appellate Court had failed to advert to the plea of mala fide constituting issue No. 3. The contention has no force because that issue had been examined together with issue No. 1 which related to landlord's bona fide requirement of the premises.

5. The petition thus being without merit is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel, however, prays for time. Mr. S. M. Zafar who is present for the landlord, agrees to allow two months' time if the petitioner would voluntarily surrender possession at the end of it. We accordingly, while dismissing this petition for leave to appeal, allow the petitioner two months' time, at the expiry of which be shall voluntarily deliver possession to the landlord and also pay rent for this period.

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.