1980 PLP 679 (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD ALAM-Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 679 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD ALAM-Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 679 (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 1980 PLP 679 (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: 1980 PLP 679 (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD ALAM-Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 30th March, 1980.
- Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-12-1979, in S. A. O. No. 533/79). -- S. 13-Ejectment-Personal need-Plea of tenant lack of bona fides on part of landlady-Plea not proved before Courts below - View taken by Courts below supported by sound reason and precedent of Supreme Court-Interference declined. Abdul Haq v. Mst Zubaida Khatoon and others 1969 S C M R 222 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 30th March, 1980. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The dispute in this case is about Shop No. II‑13‑R‑1/B, situated at Railway Road, Kasur. Mst. Zahida Parveen (hereinafter called the landlady) filed an application for eviction of Sh. Muhammad Alam petitioner/ tenant from the aforesaid shop on the ground of -(so far as relevant for the present order)‑personal need. The application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 29th April, 1979. The landlady filed an ‑appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 12th July. 1979, whereby he held that the personal need of the landlady was duly established on the record. After giving this finding he reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller and passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 533 of 19179 in the High Court but without any success as the same was dismissed on 2nd December, 1979.
3. The petitioner/tenant has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. Learned counsel has tried to argue that the landlady was a pardanashin lady for as such the plea of personal need for doing business in the shop was not bona fide, which according to the petitioner was put forward simply to secure eviction of the petitioner who had quarreled with the husband of the landlady about opening of a gate in‑ the shop. The Courts below have attended to this matter and have held that this was not sufficient by itself to establish lack of bona fide on the part of the landlady. In this respect the High Court followed a precedent of this Court as reported in Abdul Haq v. Mst. Zubaida Khatoon and others 1969 S C M R
222. The view taken by the Courts below is supported by sound reasons and the above quoted precedent of this Court and as such calls for no interference.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.