1991 PLP 2006 (SCMR)
ALI JAN — Petitioner Versus I.ATIF ULLAH SHAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2006 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | ALI JAN — Petitioner Versus I.ATIF ULLAH SHAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2006 (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 2006 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2006 (SCMR) (ALI JAN — Petitioner Versus I.ATIF ULLAH SHAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- W.N. Kohli, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja M. Afsar, Advocate-on -Record for Petitioner.
- Tariq Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1991.
- W.N. Kohli, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja M. Afsar, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Tariq Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1990 of the High Court of Balochistan, in FA.O. No. 95 of 1990).
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)
Bona fide personal requirement of son of landlord and reconstruction of premises
Bona fide requirement of son of landlord had been established by two Courts below-- Obtaining of a licence was not a prerequisite for 'raising the construction
Bona fide requirement of landlord for reconstruction of an old building and settling his son to run a clinic having been established if another son was accommodated in the same premises, landlord's contention of bona fide requirement would not be negatived
Two Courts below had concurrently allowed landlord for reconstruction of old building and accommodating his son
No infirmity in order of High Court having been pointed out, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 29‑11‑1990. '
2. The facts, in brief, are that an eviction application was filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the grounds of requirement of the shop for the use of his son Dr. Naseeb Ullah for running a clinic and for the re construction of the said property for the said purpose. The application was contested. The Rent Controller on 11‑1‑1990 passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal before the High Court was dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the eviction application, there was no mention of the need of his other son who was to run a medical store. He further submitted that without obtaining the licence, the medical store could not be started. This contention was also raised before the High Court and appropriately dealt with by it. The bona fide requirement of the son of the respondent has been established by the two Courts after acceptance the evidence of bona fide requirement. The obtaining of a licence is not a pre requisite for raising the construction. The bona ride requirement of a landlord for the re‑construction of an old building and settling his son to run a clinic has been established. If another son is accommodated in the same premises, it would not negative the contention of the respondents about the bona fide requirement. The application of the landlord was allowed on both the grounds, namely, for re construction of the old building and accommodating his son Dr. Naseeb Ullah. The two Courts have assessed the evidence properly.
4. There is no legal informity in the impugned order. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./A‑869/S Leave refused.