| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 681 2000 SLD 681 2000 CLC 34 |
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal from Order No.66 of 1992, decision dated: 7-06-1999
SYED NAJAMULHASSAN KAZMI, J
Syed Ahmad SaeedKarmani for Appellant. Aurangzeb Mirza for
Respondent
Second Appeal from Order No.66 of 1992, decision dated: 7-06-1999
SYED NAJAMULHASSAN KAZMI, J
Syed Ahmad SaeedKarmani for Appellant. Aurangzeb Mirza for
Respondent
Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED
VS
GENERAL TRADERS
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--------S. 13(2)(ii)(a)---Ejectment of tenant on ground of subletting---Landlord contended that after demise of tenant his wife claimed to have been running business in said shop, but it was not possible that widow could run business and that it should be assumed that subletting had taken place---Contention was repelled, because for running business, personal presence of tenant was not necessary and that ladies could run business through their servants and employees---Not unusual that many ladies were running business in Pakistan--To assume subletting on ground that successor of tenant was a lady, would not be possible. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- -----S. 13(2)(ii)(a)---Subletting of premises---Proof---Necessary for the landlord to prove that tenant had either sublet premises or had parted with possession--To prove change of business, some documentary evidence about change of business name, constitution of firm, registration mark and letter pad etc. could have been produced---Landlord except producing two witnesses, had not produced any other. evidence and statements of said witnesses was sufficiently rebutted by tenant by producing oral evidence---Landlord, in circumstances, had failed to discharge the onus to prove case of subletting or parting with. possession or transfer of lease rights. (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- -----S. 15---Second appeal---Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority below had considered entire evidence and recorded finding of fact against appellant---Such concurrent finding of fact not suffering from any misreading or non-reading of record, could not be interfered with in second appeal by High Court. JUDGMENT This judgm:nt will decide S.A.O. No.66 of 1992, which calls in question orders of the learned Rent Controller as well as learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the ejectment petition and also the appeal of the appellant. 2. Facts out of which this appeal has arisen are that the appellant filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for…
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