1991 PLP 1940 (SCMR)
Malik IFTIKHARUL HAOUE — Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1940 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Malik IFTIKHARUL HAOUE — Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1940 (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 1991 PLP 1940 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1940 (SCMR) (Malik IFTIKHARUL HAOUE — Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th July, 1989.
- Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- 4. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the evidence in order to demonstrate that an uncle of the respondent owned four houses in the locality, that the uncle had adopted the respondent and was keeping him in the premises as a member of his own family and not as a tenant. He has further contended that even if he was a tenant there is nothing to indicate that he was under threat of eviction from the property and his need in the circumstances could not be said to be bona fide and real.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24-4-1989, passed in FA.O. No.29 of 1989).
Ss.13 & 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal-- Ejectment on ground of personal need
Tenant who was concurrently ordered to be ejected on ground of personal bona fide need of landlord contended that Courts below were not justified to pass ejectment order against him on ground of personal requirement as uncle of landlord owning 4 houses had adopted the landlord and he was residing with his uncle as a member of his family and not as a tenant
Tenant, having failed to prove stand taken by him, held was rightly ejected by Courts below on ground of personal need of landlord
No question requiring further examination having been raised, leave to appeal was refused. Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim PLD 1977 SC 442 and Mrs. Sadiq v. Syed Intekhab Hyder Abedi 1983 CLC 1623 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑4‑1989 whereby a first appeal against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller Cantonments was dismissed in limine, by a detailed order.
2. The respondent land owner who purchased the House No.101/E, Mohallah Fateh Abad, Lahore Cantt. sought the ejectment of the petitioner, amongst others, on the ground that the house was required in good faith for his personal occupation. The application was contested and the Rent Controller disposed of the controversy by observing as hereunder:‑
"In support of the issue petitioner himself appeared in the witness‑box and stated on oath that the disputed property is needed by him in good faith for permanent occupation. None of the witnesses produced by the respondent could shake the evidence of the petitioner. On the other hand R.W.1 and R.W.2 to some extent corroborate the evidence of the petitioner. In view of my above observation the personal need of the petitioner regarding the disputed property stands proved. Issue is accordingly decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner:" The ejectment of the petitioner was ordered by the Rent Controller on 1‑2‑1989.
3. While dismissing the appeal in limine, the High Court relying on the cases of Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 S.C. 442) and Mrs. Sadiq v. Syed Intekhab Hyder Abedi (1983 CLC 1623) affirmed the finding and maintained the order of ejectment.
4. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the evidence in order to demonstrate that an uncle of the respondent owned four houses in the locality, that the uncle had adopted the respondent and was keeping him in the premises as a member of his own family and not as a tenant. He has further contended that even if he was a tenant there is nothing to indicate that he was under threat of eviction from the property and his need in the circumstances could not be said to be bona fide and real.
5. The controversy on facts required resolution. It was resolved by the Rent Controller by reference to evidence. The High Court reviewed that finding of fact in the light of law applicable to the case and upheld it. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner may have some basis in the instructions that he received from his clients but unfortunately the respondent while in the witness‑box was not questioned on these aspects namely, that he had been adopted by his uncle, that he was living as a member of the family and that he was not to shift and occupy the premises from which the petitioner's eviction was sought.
6. We find that on the record, as it stands, no such question of law arises in the case as may require further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./I‑103/S Leave refused.