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 Petitions Nos. 236‑P to 247‑P of 1984, decided on 25th May, 1985.
(On appeal from the Judgment and order, dated 15‑9‑1984 in S.A.O. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of 1984 by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15‑‑Eject men t‑‑Premises required in good faith for reconstruc tion‑‑Order of ejectment upheld by appellate Courts in successive appeals‑‑Plea of dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant not raised before High Court, and not being a legal defence in case of ejectment, disallowed‑‑Petitions being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Shakirullah Jan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th May, 1985.
In these petitions, the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the disputed property on the ground that it was required reasonably and in good faith by the landlord for reconstruction for which all the requirements have been fulfilled.
Before the Rent Controller only good faith of the landlord was challenged and evidence was led to show that the building was in good shape and that the landlord had wanted the petitioners to vacate the premises as he wanted to sell it. This plea failed and the order of ejectment was upheld by the appellate Courts in successive appeals.
Here it was urged that as in one other petition against Nasrullah, the relationship of landlord and tenant was sill under dispute and until that matter was decided the ejectment order could not be effective as in that case there could not be demolition and reconstruction of the building. But this plea was not raised before the High Court, and we do not see any reason to entertain it. Even otherwise it is not a legal defence in a case for ejectment on this ground against the petitioners.
It is for the landlord to manage the demolition and reconstruction, and if, at all, he is unable to do so, the provisions of the Ordinance will take care of it.
These petitions are without substance, and are, accordingly, dismissed.
M.I. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer