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 Appeal No. 364 of 1981, decided on 21st October, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss.13(2)(ii)(a) & 13 (3) (a)(ii)(a)‑‑Ejectment on ground of sub letting of one out of three shops‑‑Personal need of landlord‑‑Tenant evicted from entire premises‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider that High Court had erred in interfering with concurrent finding of facts of two Courts below that landlord had failed to prove that the bona fide required premises for his personal use, and that, in any case, there was no justification for landlord to obtain two remaining shops for his personal use when one shop was ordered to be handed over to him by order passed by Rent Controller.
‑‑‑S. 13 (3) (a)(if)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑ Ejectment‑‑Second appeal‑‑Bona fide personal need‑‑Interference by High Court with concurrent findings of fact‑‑Two Courts below omitting to consider record in its correct perspective nor applying relevant provisions of law‑‑On facts proved on record, High Court fully competent in law to interfere with findings of two Courts below in exercise of its jurisdiction in second appeal‑‑Order, held, unexceptionable‑‑Plea that need of landlord would be satisfied by a part of rented premises, not having been raised earlier, not permitted to be raised for first time before Supreme Court‑‑Appeal dismissed.
Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) for Appellant.
Mirza Anwar Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st October, 1985.
‑Facts leading to this appeal briefly stated are that Haji Allah Rakha deceased, who is represented by respondents herein, leased out property bearing No. 753/F/11‑13 S‑33 situated on Iqbal Street, Gujranwala consisting of three shops to petitioner by an agreement, dated 25‑11‑1963 on monthly rent of Rs.60. On 10‑6‑1969 Haji Allah Rakha filed an application for petitioner's eviction on the ground that he required the demised premises for his personal use, and petitioner was also guilty of sub‑letting the premises.
The Rent Controller who dealt with the case took the view that the landlord had failed to prove that he bona fidely required the premises for his personal use, but he held the petitioner guilty of sub‑letting one of the three shops and accordingly directed him by the order, dated 7‑2‑1975 to hand over vacant possession of only that shop to the landlord. Petitioner did not challenge this order, but Haji Allah Rakha did so, but his appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. However, a second appeal filed by him in the Lahore High Court succeeded for the reason that the learned Single Judge in the High Court took the view that landlord had successfully proved in evidence that he required the demised premises for his personal use bona fidely. Learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, directed petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.
Leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court was granted by this Court in order to consider the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the High Court has erred in interfering with the concurrent finding of facts of the two Courts below that the landlords had failed to prove that he bona fidely requires the premises for his' personal use, and that, in any case, there was no justification for the landlord to obtain the two remaining shops for his personal use when one shop was ordered to be handed over to him by the order passed by the Rent Controller.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record before us. We find that no exception can be taken with the view of the learned Judge in the High Court that the two Courts below had omitted to consider the record in its correct perspective and also did not apply the relevant provision of law. It was proved in evidence that landlord did not own or possess any other property in Gujranwala except the disputed one, and the learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, observed that the landlord "was native of Gujranwala and wanted to shift back from Karachi and establish his business in the disputed shops." In view of the facts proved on record learned Judge in the High Court was fully competent in law to interfere with the findings of two Courts below in exercise of his jurisdiction in a second appeal, and no exception in law can be taken against the judgment passed by him. The plea that the need of the landlord would be satisfied by a part of the rented premises, namely, only one shop was not raised either before the First Appellate Court or the second and it is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to raise this plea for the first, time before this Court.
For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The parties are however left to bear their own costs.
M. I. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer