Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.2390 of 1982, heard on 18th June, 1985.

---S.17(4)(b)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Ejectment- Landlord required premises for his own family stating that he retired from service during pendency of litigation and required shop in dispute for his personal use--Statement of landlord not refuted by tenant- Ground urged by tenant in writ petition that landlord required shop for his sons which, was not a recognised ground under S.17 of the Act--Such :ground was neither taken up before Rent Controller nor before Appellate Court below--Interference declined by High Court in writ jurisdiction in circumstances.

Wilayat Hussain Haidri for Petitioner.

Muhammad Siddiq Butt for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing: 18th June, 1985.

Haji Abdul Majid respondent, sought the petitioner's eviction from the shop in dispute inter alia on the ground that he required it "in good faith for his own, family ,use and occupation". This plea has been put into issue No.2 which is reproduced below:--

"Whether the petitioner requires the property in dispute for his personal use and occupation in good faith OPP.

2. On evaluation of the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller answered this issue in favour of the respondent and ordered the petitioner's eviction. This he did by his order, dated 17-3-1981. The petitioner went in appeal but it was dismissed by a learned Addl. District Judge on 21-4-1982. The validity of these orders is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. The sole point urged by the petitioner's learned counsel for removal of the impugned orders is that clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963 permits eviction of a tenant from a commercial building only if the landlord:--

"requires it in good faith of his own use."

The submission is that though eviction of a tenant from a commercial building for the use of any member of the landlord's family, is, not countenanced by section 17 yet the two Tribunals below evicted the petitioner for the purposes of user the shop by the sons of the respondent landlord.

4. I have perused the record of the case to appraise this argument. So far as the interpretation put by the petitioner's learned counsel on subsection (4) ibid is concerned, he is not wrong but his assertion is factually incorrect. It is discernible from the impugned orders that though the Tribunals below were not unmindful of the need of the sons of the respondent yet the requirement of the landlord himself was in no small measure a deciding factor for answering issue No. 2 in the latter's favour. Even the issue framed as it is, fully comprehends the personal need of the landlord. Further more, the learned counsel for the respondent has made a statement at the Bar that he has retired from service during the pendency of this litigation and requires the shop for his personal use. This statement has not been refuted; rather the learned counsel for the petitioner did not have much in agitating against the respondent's claim in this behalf. It is also to be noticed that the ground now urged in support of the writ petition was not taken up before the Rent Controller as well as the learned Addl. District Judge.

5. For all these reasons I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is, therefore, dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.

M.Y.H./A-155/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.