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. 592‑K of 1984, decided on 22nd January, 1985.
(From the order, dated 14‑10‑1984 of the High Court of Sind passed in First Rent Appeal No. 74 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑ Ejectment‑‑Personal requirement‑‑Factum of compromise with another tenant would not detract from landlord's need for particular shop‑ Question of personal need being essentially one of fact‑‑Concurrent decision on facts would not justify interference by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Maroof Ali Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Farkhand Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th January, 1985.
The petitioners, who are tenants in respect of the shop in question, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Sind, dated 14‑10‑1984, rejecting their first appeal from the order of ejectment passed against them by the Rent Controller.
2. The ejectment had been ordered on acceptance of the landlords plea of personal need. The case of the landlords was that they were six brothers and three sisters, that Munir Ahmed, the eldest amongst the brothers, was running a shop while the others had no place of business, that the shop was needed by Atiq, one of the brothers, for business of hosiery and general merchandise and that the shop in question, which opened on the main road, was suitable for that business. The High Court found force in the contention and while dismissing the petitioners' appeal allowed them six months' time to vacate the shop.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the landlords' need could not be genuine as they had compromised an ejectment proceeding with their another tenant Muhammad Farooq, upon his agreeing to enhance the rent. Munir Ahmed explained in his cross‑examination that the matter had been before the Martial Law authorities where a new rate of rent had been settled. Be that as it may, the factum of compromise, if any, would not detract from the landlords need for the particular shop. The question of personal need is essentially one of fact and the concurrent decision, on the facts of the case, is not open to interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
A.A. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer