Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 5128 of 1981, decided on 4th February, 1984.

---S. 13--Ejectment---Personal requirement--Landlord owning no other property except property in dispute--Rent Controller and appellate Court relying on his evidence and coming to concurrent finding of fact that premises were required by him bona fide for his use and occupation- Conclusions drawn by Courts below from evidence on record consistently possible and neither result of misreading nor of non-consideration of documents on record--Landlord residing with his son but on his relations being strained with his daughter-in-law not willing to stay with his son and his wife--Such circumstances, held, alone sufficient to establish his bona fide need to - shift to portion of property owned by him- Landlord, not occupying portion of property with his son in his own right, could legitimately seek eviction of tenant from portion belonging to him for his own use and occupation--Order of eviction upheld in circumstances.

--S. 13--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9- Constitutional jurisdiction--Concurrent findings of fact--Concurrent findings of Courts below that landlord required premises, even if erroneous, held, subject to no interference in writ jurisdiction.

A . W. Butt for Petitioner.

Sardar Muhammad Akram for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Date of hearing: 4th February, 1984.

This Constitutional petition arises out of order, dated 5-10-1981 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal against the order, dated 6-4-1981 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore directing his ejectment from the disputed property.

2. The dispute in this case relates to the ejectment of petitioner from a portion of Property No. S-1-24-S-17, Gawalmandi, Lahore. The petitioner occupied the same as tenant under Me respondent No. 1 at the rent of Rs.100 per month. The respondent No. 1 filed ejectment petition against him on the ground that he required the premises in dispute in good faith for his personal use and occupation.

The petition was resisted by the present petitioner. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of -the pleadings of the parties framed following issues:-

(1) Whether the petitioner requires the property for personal use O. P. P.

(2) Relief.

The evidence led by the parties was recorded by the learned Rent Controller and vide order, dated 6-4-1981 directed petitioner's ejectment from the disputed property. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal which was dismissed on 5-10-1981 by the' learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 in his ejectment petition claimed that the premises in his possession were insufficient to meet his requirement but set up a different case at the trial. It was subsequently asserted by him that his relation with daughter-in-law (wife of Aitzazul Islam) became strained and he wanted to shift in the disputed portion of the property, which belonged to him.

It was also contended that a portion of the building had been vacated by his son Dr. Munawarul Islam which could be utilized by him. It was argued that the disputed portion of the property was hardly suitable for the use of landlord's residence but was being got vacated for constructing shops as it abutted the main road on two sides. It was also pointed out that the landlord had three wives and had issues therefrom.

He had distributed the property among his prospective heirs through fake registered deeds. The litigation among them was pending in different Courts.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite side on the other hand contended that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge had concurrently held that the premises in dispute were required by the landlord bona fidely for his use and occupation. The orders were not assailable in writ jurisdiction. It was also stated that there was no other property owned by the landlord except the one in dispute which was required in good faith for his use and occupation It was also stated that the portion of property vacated by, Mr. Munawarul Islam did not belong to the landlord nor he had any claim over the same: Similarly it was stated that the landlord having strained relations with his daughter-in-law did not want to stay with her and wanted to shift in the premises owned by him. The landlord's need being bona fide was rightly appreciated by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and accordingly directed petitioner's ejectment.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through 'relevant evidence on the record with their assistance. Dr. Muhammad Afzal Mirza specifically stated that except the property in dispute, he owned no other property for his use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller as well as they learned Additional District Judge relied on his evidence and came toy, concurrent finding of fact that the premises in dispute were required by him bona fidely for his use and occupation. This fining even if assumed to be erroneous, is subject to no interference in writ jurisdiction. The conclusion drawn by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the evidence on record in this behalf is consistently possible and is neither the result of misreading or non-consideration of documents on the record, I am, therefore, not persuaded to interfere in the impugned orders ever if another view could possibly be formed from the evidence on the record. It is significant to point out that the landlord had developed strained relations with his daughter-in-law and did not like to stay with his son and his wife. This circumstance alone is sufficient to establish his bona fide need to shift to the portion of the same property owned by him, The landlord presently was not occupying the portion of the property with his son in his own right, therefore, he could legitimately seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises which belonged to him for his own use and occupation. In a similar case entitled Ghulam Nabi v. Rao Muhammad Usman Ali Khan 1980 S C M R 751 the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"It may here be observed that he was not occupying his son's house in his own right and, therefore, he had every reason to seek ejectment of the petitioner from his house which he intended to occupy in terms of section 13 (3)(1)( ) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959."

Respectfully relying on the principle laid down in above-cited case I find no force in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as for costs.

M.Y.H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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