Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13(3)(ii)

  West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13(3)(ii)---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Landlord in his ejectment application though had not specifically pleaded that shop in question was also required for the use of his son, but that omission by itself was not fatal and could not be made a ground for non-suiting landlord---Need of son was considered to be an extension of the need of landlord himself---Even if the need of the son was not specifically pleaded, While deciding question of personal use, requirement of son, if otherwise was established, could also be considered Taiyab A. Kapadia v. Agha Ziauddin Barni 1981 CLC 1267; Mst. Jana Bai v. Mst. Ghulshan and another 1984 CLC 1061; Mst. Tayyaba Begum v. Taqi Haider 1994 SCMR 1913; Muhammad Farid Khan v. Haji Mir Zaman Khan PLD 1982 SC 278; Muhammad Anwar and another v. Muhammad Saeed 1991 SCMR 2337 and Mst. Mumtaz Nasim v. Additional District Judge and others 1991 CLC 306 ref. West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13(3)(ii)---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Landlord need not examine himself or a particular number of witnesses in support of his case, if his need in respect of premises in question could be proved by producing other evidence. Muhammad Ghani for Appellant. Ali Muhammad for Respondents, Date of hearing: 28th June, 1995. JUDGMENT This is landlady's second appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 31-10-1994 accepting the appeal of the tenant respondent, setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 7 6-1993 and dismissing the application for eviction moved by the appellant against the respondents. The dispute relates to a shop out of property bearing No.SE 6R-65/III, Allama Iqbal Road, Garhi Shahu, Lahore which is in possession of the respondents as a tenant under the appellant. On 27-3-1991, an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by the appellant/landlady in which she sought   the eviction of the respondents from the shop in dispute on two grounds i.e. personal need and damage to the property. The petition was…