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 No. 1155 of 1983, decided on 28th July, 1986.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 5‑8‑1983 in W.P. No. 3409/1983).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss.13 & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑ Ejectment ordered‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Ejectment order upheld in appeal and maintained in writ jurisdiction‑‑Plea that on basis of an admission of attorney of landlord conclusion could be drawn that respondent landlords need was not bona fide‑‑Held: High Court had taken a plausible view of the case and it could not be inferred nor would such an inference be on jurisdictional plane a ground for interfering with finding of fact concurrently recorded by Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, dismissed.
C.A. Rehmari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th July, 1986.
The petitioner, a tenant of a shop, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑8‑1983 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him challenging the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, on 18th of April, 1983 and upheld in appeal, on 2‑7‑1983 was dismissed.
The landlord respondent has sought in December, 1980 the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop on the ground that he bona fide required it for the use of Khurshid Ahmad his adult son who was deaf and dumb but had received training as a tailor and was not gainfully employed. The petition was contested. the Rent Controller held the bona fide need established and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. The appellate Authority affirmed this constitutional petition was then filed and the ground taken up there was that at. the time when ejectment application was filed the respondent landlord had in his possession a shop which was let out subsequently. Such a controversy was not specifically raised in the pleadings by the petitioner but reliance was sought to be placed on the admission made by the attorney of the landlord which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner gave that impression
The learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the constitutional petition observed that so‑called admission of the attorney was equivocal and did not necessarily lead to the conclusion which the petitioner wanted to draw.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record representing the petitioner, has taken up the same ground as was taken up in the High Court. It is contended that on the basis of that admission the conclusions could be drawn that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide. It was only an attempt to get the rent enhanced as was done in the earlier similar attempts.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties as also the statement of the attorney which is sought to be utilised for the purpose of maintaining this petition. We find that the High Court has taken a plausible view and it cannot be inferred nor will such an inference be on the jurisdictional plane a ground for interfering with the finding of fact concurrently recorded by the Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.
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