Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 660 1980 SLD 660 1980 PLD 577
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal from Original Order No. 645 of 1976, decided on 10th May 1980. DATE of hearing : 4th May 1980
KHURSHID AHMAD, J
Munir Ahmad for Appellant. Raza Hussain Shaui for
Respondent

MUHAMMAD YUNUS---Appellant

VS

IQBAL BEGUM--Respondent

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-- -- S. 13 (2) (ii), (vi), (5), (5-B)-Ejectment on grounds of requirement of premises for reconstruction and personal use--Bona fides to be looked into in matters relating to reconstruction also-Landlord not prepared to provide tenant with area in his possession after its reconstruction--Husband of landlady--Held, not one of categories for whose benefit a non-residential building can be got vacated-Order of Rent Controller rejecting application for ejectment upheld and restored-[Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Yusuf P L D 1976 Lah. 275 held not appVcable]. Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Yusuf P L D 1976 Lah. .275 held not applicable. Adamali Hassanali v. Mst. Rubab Bai P L D 1967 Kar. 437 re. JUDGMENT On 7-1-1975 the respondent filed a petition for the eviction of the appellant from Shop No. BX-15-S-51, situated in -Bazar Said Nagri, Gujranwala which is in occupation of the appellant on the monthly rent of Rs. 150.. The petition for eviction proceeded on the ground of default in the payment of rent, , bona fide need of reconstruction for which it was alleged that sanction had been procured from the Municipal Committee, Gujranwala. It was also stated that after the reconstruction the respondent needed one shop for the personal use of her husband. These grounds were contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the petition. This petition for eviction was contested by the appellant It was specifically contended that the respondent was the purchaser of the said shop from a previous owner to whom the appellant was paying Rs. 80 as monthly rent. After the purchase of the property the rent was increased by the respondent by the end of 1971 to Rs. 125 and the demand of the respondent for higher rent continued and in March 1978 it was enhanced to Rs. 150. The ground of default and the dilapidated condition of the shop was also denied. It was specifically stated the sole purpose of the respondent was to increase the rent and the shop was needed in good fa th for reconstruction. The need of the shop by the husband of the respondent was also denied. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala framed the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492