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. 116‑H of 1985, decided on 21st August, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3),‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑ Ejectment‑‑Coiicurreni findings of fact reached by two Courts below to effect that respondent landlady required demised premises for use of her children and findings fully supported by evidence recorded in case‑‑Order of High Court upholding eviction of tenant maintained.
Insmul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st August, 1985.
‑This 'is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court, dated 10‑12‑1984 dismissing petitioner's appeal and thereby upholding the order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that respondent landlady bona fide requires the premises for personal use. This is what the learned Judge in the High Court has observed in the judgment:
"From his evidence, it i5 established that the respondent is running an office in the name and style of Esbi Corporation, her children are growing up and are receiving education. Due to the growing age of the children and the business which is being carried on by the respondent she is facing difficulties and inconvenience-------Presently eldest one is a daughter aged about 15 years, then there are two sons aged 14 and 10 years and the youngest one is daughter aged two years in 1981. Admittedly the respondent has two bed rooms, drawing dining and one small study room. Out of four children three are of growing age and receiving education in school. They cannot be put in one bed room. Due to growing age of the children with the passage of time their need will increase. The respondent would be requiring more than one bed room for proper accommodation and living of her family members. The respondent is living on the second floor, whereas the disputed house is on the first floor. Therefore, both the houses can be combined to one composite single unit.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that if three children are accommodated in one bed room, there is a study room which can be used for the purpose of their study and. then hardly there will be any need for their accommodation. The contention is misconceived."
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of record, we find no justification with the concurrent findings of fact reached by two Courts below which has full support in evidence recorded in the case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer