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. 879 of 1986, decided on 21st October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 28‑9‑1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 296 of 1984).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(3)(a)(ii)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑ Ejectment on ground of personal requirement set aside by Appellate Court‑‑Order reversed in writ jurisdiction on ground that Appellate Court had acted on assumption contrary to law‑‑Plea that findings of fact arrived at in a rent case were‑not liable to be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, not sustained‑‑Appellate Court having proceeded on a wrong assumption of law, High Court had simply corrected an error of law‑‑Impugned order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
‑‑S. 13 (3) (a)(ii)‑‑Ejectment Personal requirement Choice of landlord‑‑Fact that landlord was carrying on business in partnership with his father‑in‑law in latter's shop and had another shop which was let out to a tenant, held, was of no consequence‑‑Matter of choice in selecting premises lies with landlord.
Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 21st October, 1986.
The respondent applied for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop premises on the ground of his personal requirement. The application was granted by the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal challenging the said order was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 28‑11‑1983 and the respondent's ejectment application was dismissed. The respondent filed a Constitutional Petition in the High Court which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of fact arrived at in a rent case were not liable to be interfered with in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court. The learned Additional District Judge was persuaded to set aside the order of the Rent Controller on wrong assumption of law as would appear from the following passage from his judgment;
"From the evidence produced by the landlord it is proved that he was already carrying on business as share‑holder with his father‑in‑law. There is no evidence on behalf of the landlord to show that the shop already with him was not sufficient to meet his requirement."
3. It was the above finding which was sought to, canvassed by the learned counsel before us as well. His contention was that the landlord was carrying on business in partnership with his father‑in‑law and, therefore, he was already in possession of a shop which was sufficient for his requirement. It was further contended that the landlord had one more shop which was with the tenant.
4. The proposition of law is by now well settled that the matter of choice in selecting the premises lies with the landlord and, therefore, the mere fact that landlord has another shop with a tenant is of no consequence. Further the assumption of the learned District Judge as per his findings reproduced above, was contrary to law because admittedly the shop where the landlord is carrying his business belongs to his father‑in‑law and not to him. The learned High Court has simply corrected an error of law and the impugned judgment passed by it is unexceptionable.
The petition is accordingly 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