| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 1412 1981 SLD 1412 1981 SCMR 1238 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 885 of 1981, decision dated: 18-10-1981.(On appeal from the judgment dated 16th June 1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1404 of 1981)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Malik Muhammad Qayum, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Adam, Avocation on-Record for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No. 885 of 1981, decision dated: 18-10-1981.(On appeal from the judgment dated 16th June 1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1404 of 1981)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Malik Muhammad Qayum, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Adam, Avocation on-Record for
Respondents.
ABDUL KARIM
VS
Shaikh MAZHAR-ULHAQUE AND othersRespendents
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- - S. 13 (2) (vi)--Eviction-Requirement for personal use-Landlord seeking possession of his shop with a view to accommodating his male children-Held, cannot be non-suited on ground of such children occupying property not owned by him or by his children. [p. 12391A & B' ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-Respondent No. 1, Sheikh Mazhar-ul-Haque, is a Senior Officer in the Telephone & Telegraph Department. It appears that sometime ago his service were terminated. During this period he made an application for eviction of the petitioner. Abdul Karim, from a shop situated in Shah Alam Market, Lahore. The ground on which the eviction was sought was that the shop was needed for himself and for the use of his male children This application was filed in 1972. Lengthy proceedings ensued and the case was also once remanded by the Additional District Judge. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 was re-instated in service and his sons had also taken other shops on rent. The question, therefore, was whether in these circumstances, Respondent No. 1 was still entitled to obtain ejectment of the tenant. This question has been dealt with at some length by the High Court and the relevant discussion may be usefully reproduced below : "Now, even if it is assumed that the respondent's own need has disappeared due to his rejoining the Telephone Department, it will make little difference. As indicated at the outset, the respondent bad sought eviction of the petitioner on the plea that he and his male children, i. e. two sons, wanted to use the shop held by the petitioner. Admittedly, his sons are, in these days, doing business in rented shops. The eject. mean proceedings giving rise to this constitutional petition were initiated as for back as in 1972 but they have not yielded the desired result to the respondent as yet although…
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