Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 22 of 1984, decided on 30th July, 1986.
(From the judgment, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑11‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 10854 of 1980)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss.13 & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal need‑‑Bona fide of‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine questions namely: whether property owned by landlord and which was with either his son‑in‑law or son or other tenant would constitute a bar for his seeking eviction of tenant on ground of personal requirement; whether fact that landlord was doing business, other than one he wanted to start in premises in dispute, in another rented building would constitute a bar for seeking eviction of tenant on ground of personal need; and whether it is incumbent on landlord to disclose in application or in examination‑in‑chief all facts and circumstances with regard to h1s properties occupied by other persons or his having occupied other rented premises for doing some business, before asking for eviction of his tenant on ground of personal requirement.
M. Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahud din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th July, 1986.
.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 7‑11‑‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner‑landlord's Constitutional petition arising out of an appellate order refusing to eject the respondent tenant on ground of bona fide personal requirement of the petitioner, was dismissed. Petitioners application had earlier been allowed by learned Rent Controller.
A learned single Judge in the High Court has taken into consideration three circumstances when affirming the appellate judgment regarding lack of bona fides and good faith on the part of the petitioner: One, that he was running a business (other than the one he intended to start in the shop in dispute) in another rented premises; two, that his son and son‑in‑law were doing business in other property owned by him; and three, that he had failed to disclose the aforementioned two circumstances in the application for ejectment or during the examination‑in‑chief. The relevant information in that regard was elicited during his cross‑examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended none of the circumstances taken by the learned appellate Court and the High Court could in law tie considered as bar to the petitioner seeking eviction of the tenant on ground of bona fide personal requirement.
After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case for examining the following questions:
One, whether the property owned by the landlord and which is with either his son‑in‑law or son or other tenant would constitute a bar for his seeking eviction of the tenant on ground of personal requirement;
Two, whether the fact that the landlord was doing business, other than one he wanted to start in the premises in dispute, in another rented building would constitute a bar for seeking eviction of the tenant on ground of personal need; and,
Three, whether it is incumbent on the landlord to disclose in the application or in examination‑in‑chief all facts and circumstances with regard to his properties occupied by other persons or his having occupied other rented premises for doing some business, before asking for the eviction of his tenant on ground of personal requirement. Order accordingly. Security Rs.2,500.
The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer