Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 781 1984 SLD 781 1984 SCMR 1101
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 175-R of 1984, decision dated: 24-06-1984 (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 16-6-1984, in W. P. 458 of 1983)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Haji PEHALWAN MUHAMMAD YOUNAS

VS

. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- Art. 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of landlord-Order of ejectment challenged on questions of fact-Held, High Court declined to undertake a re-appraisal of such questions in Constitutional jurisdiction-Leave to appeal refused ­Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahee Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Date of hearing: 24th June, 1984. ORDER ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-This is a tenant's petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 16-6-1984 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, where by a writ petition filed by the tenant to call in question the order of his eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, was dismissed. The dispute relates to shop premises situated at trunk bazar, Rawalpindi. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord. In this behalf the finding of the Rent Controller was that respondent No. 2 who had retired from service required the shop for commencing his business along­with his nephew who is the son of respondent No. 3 and who was jobless. Respondent No. 3's son bad also appeared in support of the ejectment application and supported the claim of respondent No. 2. On the evidence produced before the Rent Controller it was found that the landlords had no other shop of their own which they could utilize for the purpose. The defence of the petitioner was that the claim for personal require­ment was mala fide and that in fact the landlords were seeking to obtain possession of the shop in order to dispose it of by sale. The Rent Controller did not believe this defence and, as already stated, accepted the application for ejectment. After the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, on the ground that in the…
🔒
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