Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos.1018 and 1020 of 1985, decided on 8th December, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18‑11‑1985 of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Writ Petitions No. 3171 and 349 of 1982) .

‑‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13(2)‑‑Ejectment‑‑High Court in writ petition disallowing question which was not raised before Courts below on ground that plea had been raised only to confuse issue‑‑No misreading of record‑‑Supreme Court disallowed same point to be reagitated before it‑‑Petition being devoid of force, dismissed.

‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Ejectment‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal‑ Grant of‑‑Point taken before High Court and repelled on ground that it was raised for first time only during proceedings of writ petition to confuse matter‑‑Same point disallowed to be register before Supreme Court in petition for leave to appeal.

Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).

Raja A. Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in both Petitions).

Date of hearing: 8th December, 1985.

.‑‑'this order sill dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.108 of 1985 and Civil Petition No. 1020 of 1985, both are directed against the same judgment of the High Court.

2. The petitioners in these cases are tenants of Shops Nos. 37 and 48 in 8 big building known as Sharif Building situated at 104, McLeod Road, Lahore which was let out to 11 tenants.

3. The respondent landlord filed 11 applications for ejectment of all the tenants in the building on the ground of reconstruction under section 13(2)(vi) of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller allowed the petitions and ordered the eviction of the tenants, The tenants filed appeals against the said order which were dismissed by the learned District, fudge. Eight of the tenants then filed writ petitions to challenge the orders of their ejectment, which petitions have all been dismissed. Six of the tenants have since been ejected and only the petitioners in these two petitions have felt aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court and challenged it by filing these petitions for leave to appeal.

4. The only ground urged in support of these petitions .is that the sanctioned plan for reconstruction of the building consisted of three leaves but out of this plan only one leaf showing the first floor was filled along with the ejectment petition, while the other two leaves including the leaf wherein the property in possession of the petitioners is located were not placed on the record. This omission, according to the learned counsel, reflected upon the bona fide of the landlord and the tenants of the building on the floors with regard to whom the sanctioned plan was not filed could not be ejected.

5. A similar plea was taken before the High Court and repelled by it in the following words:‑

"The fact remains that the plea for the reconstruction of property at 104, McLeod Road was produced in evidence by the landlord. This consists of three leaves and the copy of it is available as Annexures R/1, R/2 and R/3. It cannot, therefore, be said that the landlord withheld one leaf of the sanctioned plan. As regards Property No. 89, McLeod Road, it has nothing to do with the present property although this too belongs to the present landlord. In fact, this question was raised for the first time only during the proceedings of the present writ petitions. This was a separate matter and the question of building line of this property was a subject‑matter of correspondence between the owner and the Government. The introduction of this material in the course of the proceedings of the writ petitions was only an attempt to confuse the matter although Property No. 89, McLeod Road had nothing to do with the property in question."

6. Mr. Dilawar Mahmood has again attempted to re‑agitate the same point before us. He has, however, failed to show that the learned Judge in the High Court had misread the record when he observed that this question was not raised before the Court below. In this connection, we have seen the written statement filed by the tenants to the ejectment petition filed by the landlord, where no such objection was taken, nor was this objection reflected in the issues and it appears, as observed by the learned Judge in the High Court, that this plea has been raised later on only to confuse the issue.

7. There is no force in these petitions, which are, accordingly, dismissed hereby.

M. I. Petitions 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.