Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3210 = 1981 SLD 3210 = 1981 SCMR 709
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 646 of 1975, decided on 13th November, 1975. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1-7-1975 in S. A. O. No. 344 of 1974).
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J
Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.

NASIR-UD-DIN-Petitioner

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE-Respondent

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)

Section: 13(3) (i)

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13(3) (i) - Requirement for personal use - Contention that landlord increased rent of premises in question by' Rs. 10 after he himself received first notice to quit Government accommodation possessed' by him and petitioner tenant's ejectment sought for extracting still higher rent--Held : Landlord if not going to occupy premises in dispute after its vacation by tenant petitioner, petitioner can under law apply for restoration of his possession and move for prosecution of respondent landlord.                                                                                                                              JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD GUL, J. -This leave petition is from the High Court's order dated 1-7-19715 in S. A. O. 344 of 1974 arising out of proceedings for ejectment initiated by respondent against the petitioner in respect of residential premises 139-A, Gulberg Colony, Lyallpur. The respondent sought the petitioner's ejectment on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement on the allegation that he was presently occupying a Government quarter but had since received notice from his Department to vacate it and further that he was facing some difficulty in sending his infant daughter to a kindergarten school at a distance of some three miles from the Government quarter he is presently occupying. The petitioner resisted application on the ground that it was mala fide in that respondent is seeking petitioner's ejectment to let the premises on higher rent. On the evidence produced by the parties which included copies of office memorandum and notices issued to the respondent for the vacation of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register