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. 1183 of 1983, decided on 29th July, 1986.
(From the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑7‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 2218 of 1983)
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) a 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal need‑‑Bona fide of‑ Application rejected on ground that a rented shop was possessed by father of petitioner‑landlord and such possession disentitled him from seeking eviction of tenant on ground of personal requirement as that showed want of bona fides on his part‑‑Petitioner contending that even if he himself had been in possession of a rented shop that could not be a legal bar to his seeking eviction. of tenant from shop on personal ground‑‑Leave granted to examine, inter alia, such contention.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th July, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 6‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of order of eviction of the respondent No. 3 tenant passed by a learned Rent Controller, was dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to be ejected on the ground of personal requirement of the petitioner‑landlord. The tenant's appeal, however, was accepted and the petitioner's application for eviction, was dismissed. The order of the appellate Court having been upheld by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, the petitioner landlord has now sought leave to appeal.
The case has ultimately been decided against the petitioner on two points: One, that he had also asserted ground of default of payment of rent by the tenant and because he, the landlord, had failed in substantiating that ground, therefore, this failure will react on his bona fides regarding the other ground namely, personal requirement. Secondly, the petitioner had a rented shop with him. He gave its possession to his father or brother some time before seeking eviction from the shop in dispute which he had purchased a couple of months before seeking eviction of the respondent.
A learned Judge in the High Court while dealing with the second point observed as follows:‑‑
"The petitioner's witness, Muhammad Bashir, P.W. 2, bore out that the petitioner's father had another shop. In such circumstances the view formed by the learned Additional District Judge touching lack of bona fide regarding requirement of the shop cannot be said to be based on any misreading of evidence."
Learned counsel has contended that both the appellate forum and the High Court fell in legal error in considering that possession) by the father of a landlord of a rented shop disentitles him from seeking eviction of a tenant from his own shop on ground of personal requirement because that would show lack of bona fides on his part. He has argued that even if the petitioner himself had been in possession of a rented shop it could not have been a legal bar to his seeking) eviction of the tenant from his own shop.
This, and the other points raised in this petition, require examination. We accordingly grant leave to appeal.
Security Rs.2,500.
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