Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4270 of 1984, decided on 25th November, 1984.

---S. 13(3)(ii)--Bona fide personal requirement--Landlord not stating that he proposed to set up a particular business--Such statement by itself, held, not enough to displace assumption that premises were required personal use--Landlord could start any business in vacated premises.

Hakam Qureshi for Appellant.

Syed Muhammad Baqir Gardezi and Rana Muhammad Nasim Sabir for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25^th November. 1984.

Muhammad Aslam; a carpenter, brought an application seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the shop located in a bye-lane of Hall Road, Lahore, on grounds of personal need. The petition was accepted on 25-1-1984 by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner challenged the orders in appeal but the appeal was dismissed on 4-6-1984. The petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that Muhammad Aslam who is a carpenter has not indicated that he wants to set up the business of carpentry in the shop.

2. The learned counsel has taken me through the evidence in the case. It is correct that Muhammad Aslam did not state that he proposes to set up a business of carpentry in the shop after it is vacated. But that by itself is not enough to displace the assumption that the premises are required for the personal use. Muhammad Aslam brought the ejectment application on the ground that he was aging and was ill and could not carry on with his present vocation of setting up show cases by moving about from place to place. It is the illness and the old age of the landlord which has impelled him to move an application for ejectment. He cannot be compelled to set up a carpentry shop alone in the vacated premises, although he has stated that he works as a carpenter but can state any business in the vacated premises. AW 1 and AW 2 have supported him. The evidence on behalf of the present petitioner-tenant was to the effect that the landlord was interested only in seeking higher rent and that his need was not genuine. The petitioner appeared as RW 2. He did not state at any stage that the landlord was not old or not ill, which is the main reason for the landlord for seeking the ejectment of the petitioner.

3. There is a concurrent finding of the two Courts below and they are agreed that the need of the landlord for personal use, is genuine. As discussed above, this finding is supported by the record of the case. There is no justification for interfering with the orders as they do not suffer from want of jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

M. A. K.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.