1982 PLP 919 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMED-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 919 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMED-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 919 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 919 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 919 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMED-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th April, 1981.
- M A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- The Rent Controller rejected respondent's, applicaton for petitioner's ejectment but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur accepted respondent's plea that he bona fide required the demised premises for personal use and his view was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the High Court.
- Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the respondents had simultaneously prayed for enhancement of rent and this by itself was sufficient to prove that his plea that he bona fide required the premises for personal use was not maintainable inasmuch as respondent owned 9 shops in the same locality out of which two are lying vacant and hence his plea that he required the demised premises for his personal use is mala fide for this reason also.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 24-12-1980 in S. A. O. No. 594 of 1977). -- Ss. 13(3) & 15(4)-Ejectment on ground of personal use-Evidence conclusively proving that landlord required shop in dispute bona fide for his personal use and occupation-No interference called for.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 24‑12‑1980 dismissing peti tioner's second appeal and thereby confirming the order of the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, by which the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to his landlord, respondent herein. The Rent Controller rejected respondent's, applicaton for petitioner's ejectment but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur accepted respondent's plea that he bona fide required the demised premises for personal use and his view was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the High Court. Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the respondents had simultaneously prayed for enhancement of rent and this by itself was sufficient to prove that his plea that he bona fide required the premises for personal use was not maintainable inasmuch as respondent owned 9 shops in the same locality out of which two are lying vacant and hence his plea that he required the demised premises for his personal use is mala fide for this reason also. Both these submissions have been rejected by the learned Single Judge in the High Court for the cogent reason that "the evidence have conclusively proved that the respondent required the shop in dispute bona fide for his personal use and occupation" and that the petitioner had also failed to substantiate the assertion that "the shops referred to by him in fact belonged to the sons of the respondents". There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner requests that petitioner may be granted two months' time to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent as he has to make arrangements for shifting of his business to some other place. The request is granted provided the petitioner deposits rent in Court in terms of the orders already, passed in the case. Petition dismissed.