Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13(3) , 199

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Constitutional petition---Appraisal of evidence---Tenant's application for summoning of record of a Housing Society to disprove plea of personal need had not been allowed by Rent Controller---Landlord, however, produced photo copies of said documents of same property before the High Court which indicated that the property was purchased by landlord after institution of ejectment petition by him---Held, even if said evidence had been produced before Trial Court, finding of Courts below would not have been different---No case, in the circumstances was made out for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Zafar Pasha Ch. for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents, Nos. 1 and 2. Abdul Hayee Mansoor for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1993. JUDGMENT In this Constitutional petition legality of order dated 2-1-1990 passed by the Rent Controller by which the ejectment petition filed by respondents Nos.3 to 5 on the ground of personal need had been accepted and order dated 30-4-1991 through which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, have been called in question. Respondents Nos.3 to S sought eviction of the petitioners from the property in dispute on the ground that the same was required for bona fide personal need in good faith of Mst. Gul Zarree and Mst. Gul Seemi. The ejectment petition was contested by   the petitioners. It was also pleaded that an amount of Rs.2,00,000 was spent by him on the improvement of the property. The Rent Controller after careful and elaborate appraisal of evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the need as regards Mst. Gul Zarree had been established whereas as regards Mst. Gul Seemi it appeared to be a mere desire to occupy the property, she was admittedly living in Masqat with her husband. This finding has been upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued…