Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 160‑R/1984, decided on 25th October, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 24‑5‑1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 483 of 1981).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13(3)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Landlord needing shop for own use‑ Two Courts dismissing ejectment petition‑‑Orders impugned in writ jurisdiction‑‑Improper reading of evidence‑‑Landlord's mere working abroad/having dual nationality, no disqualification‑‑Case remanded for appropriate order‑‑Conclusion of High Court being in accordance with accepted principles of re‑appraisal of evidence, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Fazal Azim and another v. Tariq Manmood and another P L D 1982 S C 218 and Abdul Quddus v. District Judge Sialkot and others 1982 C L C 2355(2) rel.

Mr. Kowkab lqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M. Sirajul Haq Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocvate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th October, 1984.

‑‑ The petitioner's case is that an ejectment application was filed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of Shop No. D/58 Urdu Bazar, Rawalpindi by respondent No.3. The petitioner resisted the application on the ground that the landlord‑respondent was a permanent resident of U.K. having settled there by acquiring British nationality and having his whole family there including his sons who were studying in various British educational institutions. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application on the ground that the respondent‑landlord had failed to substantiate his plea of personal requirement and held

"Admittedly the petitioner has a British nationality and his children were still in England and he draws his pension from England. There is no inspiring evidence on record to convince that petitioner has permanently settled in Pakistan..."

2. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi who also made same observation regarding personal requirement of the respondent /landlord and dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 14‑9‑1981. The respondent then filed constitutional petition in the High Court and the learned Single Judge observed in the impugned judgment dated 24‑4‑1984.

"As to his bona fide needs the appellant explained at length that though his sons were still studying in England under the patronage of their Mamoon, he himself had become a disabled person by getting his fingers chopped off in an accident rendering him incapable to work there any more and, therefore, was compulsively in need of his own shop to do the business of a draper. His own statement, was claimed to have ordinarily been accepted because the law did not contemplate doubting his veracity at the very outset and provided a guarantee under subsection (4) of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (as amended up‑to‑date) of restoring possession to the respondent‑tenant in case he, after seeking ejectment, did not occupy the premises for his personal use. It was added that the mere fact of his working abroad was not at all a disqualification. Fazal Azim and another v. Tariq Mahmood and another P L D 1982 S C 218 and Abdul Quddus v. District Judge, Sialkot and others 1982 C L C 2355 (2) provided ample authority for the view. Likewise acquiring British nationality was said to be nothing extraordinary, as it did not have the effect of denuding the appellant of his original nationality. Under the law it was a case of dual nationality and that is why he was presently back home as a Pakistani citizen."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that jurisdiction to interfere with the appreciation of evidence and concurrent finding of the two Courts below and drawing different conclusion by the learned High Court Judge was not justified; that in rent matters, second appeals have been abolished and there was, therefore, no justification for the learned High Court to interfere on the basis of section 13(4) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; that the learned Single Judge has remanded the case to the Additional District Judge with the direction to pass an appropriate order, while, it is submitted by the learned counsel, nothing is left to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge as everything has been decided already by the learned High Court Judge himself and as such the remand order is without any purpose.

4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find that this is not a conclusion arrived at by the learned High Court Judge merely on the basis of conjectures. He has read the evidence in its correct perspective and has arrived at a conclusion, which cannot be considered as contrary to the accepted principles of re‑appraisal of the evidence. Moreover, it is not in all cases where the concurrent finding based on improper reading of evidence cannot be interfered by the High Court. However, in this case the learned High Court Judge has remanded the case leaving the option still open to the learned Additional District Judge to pass a proper order. We find no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

M . I . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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