Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3110 = 1981 SLD 3110 = 1981 PLD 459
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7879'of 1980, decided on 19th April, 1981.
Presented By: M. S. H. Qureshi, J
Kodumal Kherejmal v. Dema Mal P L D 1969 Quetta 21 ; Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Hussain P L D 1971 B J 17 and Abdus Sattar Haji Ahmad v. Fazal Hussain P L D % 969 Lah: 753 ref.   Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.   S. M. Masud for
Respondent.

MAHMOOD AHMAD KAHLOON-Petitioner            

VERSUS

  FATEH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 199

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

Section: 13

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)   Art. 199 and West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-Constitutional jurisdiction-Can be invoked only where impugned order suffers from legal defect amounting to defect in exercise of jurisdiction on part of Tribunal-Constitutional jurisdiction-Held, not meant for examining decisions on questions of fact-Bona fide need of landlord-Basically a question of fact-Decision by Tribunal having jurisdiction in matter-Cannot be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction before High Court-[Question of fact].     Date of hearing : 12th April, 1980.                                                                                                                      JUDGMENT   This is a constitutional petition brought by the tenant against the order of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, dated 17-3-1980 whereby he accepted an appeal of the landlord from the dismissal of his ejectment petition by the Controller and directed the petitioner/tenant's ejectment.   2. Fateh Muhammad, the landlord, had instituted a petition for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from Shop No. P-131 on the ground of his bona fide personal need. The solitary issue framed on this point was found against the landlord by the Controller, who held that the landlord's requirement was not in good faith because he was in possession of another shop adjacent to the one in dispute. The appellate Court, however, found that the adjacent Shop, i. e., shop No. P-132, which was in possession of the landlord, was being used .for residential purposes. He, therefore held that this fact did not derogate from the bona fide nature of the landlord's need.   3. Three shops figure in the evidence. These are Shop No. P. 131, which is in dispute, Shop No. P. 132 and shop No. P. 133. According to the .evidence, Shop No. P. 132 was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register