| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 2755 2007 SLD 2755 2007 PLJ 753 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 57 of 2006, heard on 23.5.2007
MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.
Raja Tauqeer Ahmad Satti, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Kiani, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
W.P. No. 57 of 2006, heard on 23.5.2007
MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.
Raja Tauqeer Ahmad Satti, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Kiani, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
Mst. TASNEEM IQBAL
VS
ARSHAD KHAN and another--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IV of 2001)-- ----S.17(4)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Art. 199--Bonafide--Requirement for personal use--Occupation by lady and her husband--Ejectment order--Appeal was allowed by First Appellate Court--Assailed--Contested--Breach of terms of contract--Validity--Lady would be required to get lease deed executed in favour of the purchaser by tenant in possession--Contract was admitted by occupant--Court did not find any malafide emanating on the part of petitioner with reference to transaction entered into by her--Petition was accepted. Judgment On 20-3-2004, the petitioner filed an application against the respondent for his ejectment from a shop located in Islamabad urban area. The ejectment was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation of the petitioner-lady and her husband. The said allegation was denied by the respondent in his written reply. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide order dated 15-12-2004, learned Rent Controller allowed the application and passed an ejectment order after recording the findings in favour of the petitioner under Issue No. 1 pertaining to the said requirement for personal use and occupation. A first appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, on 14.6.2005, who has reversed the said findings and dismissed the ejectment application filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Additional District Judge has misread the evidence on record as also the pleadings while holding that the application was filed mala fide. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that admittedly the land-lady wanted to sell the property in dispute to a third party and a suit for specific performance is pending. The precise contention is that the ejectment was sought for delivery of possession to the proposed vendee. 3. I have gone through the copies of the record. The petitioner entered in the Witness-box to state her case and made a statement on oath that the shop is bona fide required for her personal use and occupation.…
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