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. 72‑R of 1986, decided on 14th April, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6‑4‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 142 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13(3)(a)(ii)(a) & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Bona fide personal need‑ Proof of‑‑Appellate Court accepting testimony of landlord in regard to his need being bona fide‑‑‑Order impugned in writ jurisdiction‑‑Plea that solitary statement of landlord was not enough to establish his bona fide need of shop for his own occupation, repelled‑‑Evidence of respondent‑landlord sufficient to prove his need‑‑Law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact‑‑It is quality of evidence which determines its acceptance‑‑Leave to appeal refused
Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th April, 1986.
‑It was contended by the petitioner while resisting the application for ejectment on the ground of personal need that it was neither genuine nor bona fide which plea prevailed with the Rent Controller who dismissed the application on 15th of May, 1985, but in appeal the appellate Court accepted the testimony of the respondent in regard to his need being bona fide.
The petitioner filed a constitution petition to challenge the conclusion on facts by the appellate Court and contended that the solitary statement of the landlord was not enough to establish his bona fide need of the shop for his own occupation. The High Court held that the appellate Court in holding that the evidence of the respondent was sufficient to prove his need committed no illegality either of law or procedure which conclusion is unexceptionable as the law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. There is therefore, no legal error in the judgment as it is the quality of the evidence which determines its acceptance.
Accordingly, there is no substance in this petition which is 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