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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 349 of 1984, decided on 22nd May, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21-1-1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 3101 of 1982).
--Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(4) & (5)--Ejectment sought on ground of personal need of landlord--Proof of bona fide of landlord--Positive evidence--Sufficient evidence not on record to establish landlord's bona fides--Leave to appeal granted to, consider contention of tenant that "case of personal need" was distinguishable from case where premises was required by landlord for reconstruction, because a very severe penalty was provided by S. 13(5) of Ordinance, 1959 in case landlord failed to demolish and reconstruct a building got vacated on that ground, and it was, therefore, that in such case mere fact that a landlord also took risk of incurring penalty provided by S. 13(5) could be assumed to establish his bona fide, but that was not so in case based on ground of "requirement for personal need" because consequences provided by S. 13(4) of Ordinance, 1959 were much less stringent.
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1984.
Bashir Ahmad petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 21-1-1984, dismissing his writ petition in a rent matter.
2. The matter relates to a shop in Okara wherein the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent-landlords. The respondent-landlords filed an ejectment application against him on the ground of "personal requirement" which was accepted by the Rent Controller on 16-12-1980 and the petitioner's ejectment was ordered. He filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was accepted on the ground the respondent-landlords had not been able to prove their bona fides. Feeling aggrieved the respondent-landlords then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was accepted vide the impugned judgment dated 21-1-1984, on the ground, inter alia, that section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance provided sufficient safeguard to a tenant which is enough by itself to establish the landlord's bona fides. Reliance was placed on Mst. Tauheed Khanum v. Muhammad Shamshad 1980 S C M R 593.
3. The petitioner's counsel, however, submitted that the case of "personal need" is distinguishable from cases where premises are required by the landlord for "reconstruction" because a very severe penalty is provided by section 13(5) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance in a case where the landlord fails to demolish and reconstruct a building got vacated on that ground, and it is, therefore, that in such cases the mere fact that a landlord also takes the risk of incurring the penalty provided by Section 13(5), can be assumed to establish his bona fides. But this is not so in cases based on the ground of "requirement for personal need", because the consequences provided by section 13(4) or the said Ordinance are much less stringent. The counsel submitted that in cases of the latter kind it is essential for the landlord to prove his bona fides through positive evidence. But in the present case sufficient evidence is not available on the record to establish respondent-landlords' bona fides.
4. The above noted contentions need consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.
Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 as costs.
To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
5. Operation of the impugned order shall remain suspended till the decision of the appeal.
M.Z.M. Leave granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer