1991 PLP 1599 (MLD)
Sh. SADIQ ALI GOHAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1599 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sh. SADIQ ALI GOHAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1599 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1599 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1599 (MLD) (Sh. SADIQ ALI GOHAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sabir Nasim for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 2. Mr. Nasim Sabir, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13(3)(a)(ii)
Personal bona fide requirement
Landlady had categorically stated that she would provide necessary capital in business sought to be carried out in shop in dispute and that day to day business affairs would be conducted by her son and husband who had experience of that business
Held, it could not be said that shop was sought to be vacated for use of husband and not for landlady herself
Failure to give particulars of business sought to be carried out in shop in question, was also not fatal and would not amount to mala rides of landlady.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th March, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises out of an application for ejectment under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by respondent No.3 Mst. Razia Sultana, against the petitioner in respect of a shop in his possession situated in Chowk Block No.3, Sargodha. The eviction was sought on the solitary ground that the premises were required by the landlady for her own use. This plea found favour with the Rent Controller, who directed the ejectment of the petitioner on 11th June, 1987. This finding was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 31st January, 1988. Hence this petition.
2. Mr. Nasim Sabir, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised the following contentions:- (1) That in law a tenant cannot be ejected from non-residential property for the use of the husband of landlady. (2) That the details of the business sought to be carried out in the shop were not given in the ejectment petition itself and, therefore, the mala fides of the respondent were quite evident.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that none of the two contentions can prevail. Respondent No.3 while appearing as her own witness has categorically stated that the business to be run in the shop would belong to her and she would provide the necessary capital, and her son and husband, who have experience of the same business, shall be conducting day to day affairs of the business. That being so, it cannot be held that the shop was sought to be got vacated for the use of husband and not the landlady herself.
4. The other contention raised by the learned counsel that particulars having not been given in the petition itself, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down in Haji Mohibullah & Co. and others v. Khawaja Baha-ud-Din 1990 SCMR1070.
4. In view of what has been stated above, the petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is allowed four months' time to vacate the premises. There shall be no orders as to costs. H.B.T./S-927/L Petition dismissed.