| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3273 = 1981 SLD 3273 = 1981 SMCR 782 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 287 of 1980, decided on 26th March, 1980. (On appeal from the .judgment dated 5-3-1980 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 134 of 1980).
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No. 287 of 1980, decided on 26th March, 1980. (On appeal from the .judgment dated 5-3-1980 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 134 of 1980).
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
RASHID BROTHERS, FAISALABAD-Petitioner
VERSUS
Ch. MUHAMMAD AN WAR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
Section: 13(2) (vi)
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13(2) (vi) - Requirement for reconstruction-Sanction for reconstruction obtained but expired during pendency of ejectment proceedings-Renewal of sanction-Only a formality-Not reason-able for landlords to get sanction renewed every year duringpendency of proceedings going on for last many years. Date of hearing : 26th March, 1980. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-On respondents' ejectment application for ejecting the petitioner-firm from a shop situated in Goal Karyana Bazar, Faisalabad, the Rent Controller on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed as many as 5 issues of which only 3 are relevant, i.e, issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 :- (1) Whether the present application is hit by the provision of section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ? (2) Whether the respondent is a defaulter in payment of rent for the period in dispute ? (3) Whether the property in dispute is bona fides required by the petitioner for reconstruction ? The Rent Controller decided Issues Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the res pondents while issue No. 2 was found against them and it was held that there was no default in the payment of rent. The petitioner was, however, ordered to be ejected in view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 3 by the order of the Rent Controller dated 8th May, 1978. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order but the learned Addi tional District Judge not only upheld the findings of the Rent Controller on Issues Nos. 1 and 3 but also reversed his finding on Issue No. 2 and held that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent as well. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then moved the Lahore High Court by a second appeal (S. A. O. No. 134/198) which, too, was dismissed…