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. 301 of 1981, decided on 18th March, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14‑2‑1981 passed in S.A.0. No. 468 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(3)(a)(ii)(a)‑‑Ejectment allowed on ground of personal need of landlord‑‑Contention raised that ejectment application was incompetent because another shop belonging to landlord, whim was sufficient for his need, had fallen vacant before ejectment application was filed‑‑Held: It was for landlord to choose premises suitable for requirement of trade or business and not for tenant to dictate to him choice in that regard‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Ismail Chaudri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 1981.
‑This petition arises out of an application filed by Hakim Nisar Ahmed, first respondent, against petitioner and the second respondent on the ground that he required the demised shop for use of his son, and the tenant, namely, petitioner, had not only sublet the premises unauthorisedly to the second respondent but was also guilty of default in payment of rent.
The Rent Controller who dealt with the case accepted only the first two pleas of the respondent, and not the third, and directed petitioner's eviction. Petitioner's appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jhang who, however, upheld the order of the Rent Controller only on the ground that the landlord had satisfactorily proved that he required the shop for the use of his son. Petitioner's Second Appeal was dismissed by Lahore High Court, and he now seeks leave to appeal.
Learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner for leave to appeal submits that ‑the High Court has failed to appreciate that another shop belonging to the landlord had fallen vacant before the ejectment application was filed which was sufficient for the requirement of landlord's son, and the ejectment application was thus incompetent.
We find that this plea has been already examined by the High Court and rejected on proper and valid grounds. In any case, it was for the landlord to choose the premises suitable for the requirement of the trade or business which his son wished to carry on, and not for the tenant to, dictate to him the choice in this regard.
On having gone through the record of the case, we find no merit in this petition it is dismissed.
M. I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer