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. 187 of 1983, decided on 31st October, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 14‑2‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 629 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal need‑‑Petitioner seeking re‑appraisal of evidence on question of fact concurrently determined against him‑‑No illegality in proceedings‑‑Such questions having been conclusively determined by statutory forums, are ordinarily not liable to be re‑opened‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch.Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam,Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st October, 1984.
.‑‑ By order dated 19‑5‑1980 the Rent Controller, Sargodha, ordered the eviction of the petitioner who was a tenant in the disputed premises consisting of a shop in property No. 11 Lower Storey, Street No. 5, Block No. 19, Sargodha, on the grounds that the petitioner had made default in the payment of rent to the respondent /landlord and that the property in dispute was required in good faith for personal use by the landlord. The learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, concurred with the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, but the Lahore High Court, on a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, set aside the order, remanding the case for re‑hearing of the appeal. The learned District Judge, Sargodha, on remand, once again by his order dated 16‑1‑1983, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, but maintained the order of eviction only on the ground of personal need.
Being aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner once again challenged the order in the constitutional jurisdiction but his writ petition has been dismissed in limine by order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 14‑2‑1983. The petitioner has come up before this Court and seeks leave to appeal.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of eviction has been maintained by the learned District Judge on a gross mis-appreciation of evidence on record, which did not make out a case for bona fide personal requirement on the part of the landlord. In this connection it has been urged that the landlord, in a previous proceeding, obtained possession of the adjacent shop premises from its tenant and that the landlord has no family, inasmuch as he has no wife or children. The High Court while repelling this contention pointed out that there was a concurrent finding on this point by the two Courts below and that if the landlord was utilizing the previously obtained accommodation for his residential purposes, it did not in any way detract from his right to obtain possession of the premises presently in dispute for his business purposes.
After hearing the learned counsel we find that the petitioner only seeks a re‑appraisal of evidence in regard to a question of fact, which has been concurrently determined against him. Such questions are ordinarily not liable to be reopened at this stage, as they stand conclusively determined by the statutory forums, especially when no illegality has been pointed out in the proceedings. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer