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 No. 917 of 1980, decided on 6th August, 1983.
(From the judgment dated 1st April, 1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in S. A. O. No. 435 of 1979).
----- Art. 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (V of 1959), S. 13-Ejectment application for default and personal need Landlady in her ejectment application taking plea that :-
< --[if gte vml 1]>
- Husband of landlady as her attorney stating that :
< --[if gte vml 1]>
- High Court construing requirement as stated by husband to be: contrary to ground taken in ejectment application-Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether there was practically any con flict inasmuch as landlady's husband had deposed in her place.
M. M. Iqbal Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent
Date of hearing : 6th August, 1983.
The petitioner/landlord is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-4-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby in Second Appeal of the respondent/tenant, it set aside the order of the respondent's ejectment by reversing the findings on issues of default and personal use and dismissed the petitioner's ejectment application.
2. The rent for the alleged period of default, that is, November 1973 to March, 1974, had been remitted by three money orders, i.e. Exh. R/1, dated 22:2-1974 for Rs. 20, Exh. R/2, dated 9-3-1974 for Rs. 40 and Exh.R/3, dated 22-3-1974 for Rs. 40. Learned counsel urges that there was default in the payment of rent at least for the months of November and December, 1973.
3. On the question of personal use, the petitioner had taken the plea in her ejectment application that:
< --[if gte vml 1]>
Her husband, who had appeared as her attorney, had stated :
< --[if gte vml 1]>
The High Court had construed this requirement to be contrary to the ground taken in the ejectment application. Learned counsel contends u at there was practically no conflict inasmuch as the petitioner's husband had been deposing in her place.
4. The points raised require consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer