Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1625 = 1991 CLC 1184
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.N13 of 1988, heard on 10th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Irshad Hasan Khan, J
Sh. Muhammad Shari for Petitioner. Abdul Shakoor for
Respondent No.l.

UNITED BANK LIMITED --- Petitioner

VERSUS

QAMAR HUSSAIN and 2 others --- Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 4 , 13

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ---- Ss. 4 & 13 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ---Question relating to appreciation of evidence, could not e undertaken in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Sh. Muhammad Shari for Petitioner. Abdul Shakoor for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 10th March, 1991. JUDGMENT This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 12-3-1988, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal riled by the petitioner against the order dated 29-3-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, directing him to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over vacant possession of the same to respondent No.l.   Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.1 filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner in respect of commercial premises known as 16-C Queens Road, Lahore, on the ground of personal need. The application was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller in view of pleadings of the parties and after appreciating evidence on record, accepted the application vide order dated 29-3-1987.   On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore after re-appreciating the evidence concurred with the finding of -fact that the premises in dispute was required in good faith by respondent No.1 for his personal need. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 12-3-1988.   Sh. Muhammad Shafi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the points raised in the memorandum of appeal Were not considered in its entirety, inasmuch as, a plea was taken in the memorandum of appeal that respondent No.1 intended to achieve enhancement in rent which was refused by the petitioner herein and, therefore, by way of counterblast the ejectment application was filed after a lapse of about 4-1/2 months. The contention has no force.   A bare perusal of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register