Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 339 1975 SLD 339 1975 SCMR 517
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 27-R of 1975, decision dated: 23rd May 1975.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on the 25th of February 1975, in S. A. O. No. 90 of 1975)
SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD IQBAL

VS

MASUD AHMAD AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- S. 13(3)-Ejectment-Requirement for own use--Requirement for personal use of entire body of landlords or use of male children of all landlords taken together-Not contemplated by law under S. 13(3)-Landlord requiring property bona fide for his own use or for use of any of his male children--Entitled to ask for possession-­Property jointly owned by more than one person--.Requirement fulfilled if property needed by any one of them or for use of male children of any of them. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 25-2-1975, whereby he has dismissed in limine a second appeal filed by the petitioner to challenge an order of ejectment made against him by the Rent Controller, Gujjar Khan, and upheld in first appeal by the District Judge, Rawalpindi, in respect of a shop situate in Gujjar Khan town. The ejectment had been sought by the respondents on the ground that the shop was required for the personal use of at least two of them who wanted to start their own business in the said shop. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the Courts below have erred in law in thinking that the condition of personal requirement and use, as contemplated by the relevant clause of subsection (3) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was fulfilled even though the shop was not required by the entire body of landlords but only by some of them. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of joint owners of a property the term 'landlord' has to be construed in the plural, and, therefore, the personal requirement must be the requirement of all the owners, and only some of them are not entitled to get the shop vacated for their use. as such a use would not be the personal requirement of all the landlords. In support of this submission, he has referred us to McIntyre and another v. Hardicastle ((1948) 2 K B 82). The relevant portion of subsection (3) of section 13 of the Ordinance is in the following words :- "3(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492