1981SCMR979(1) (PLP)
Sh. MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1981SCMR979(1) (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981SCMR979(1) (PLP)?
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 1981SCMR979(1) (PLP)?
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: 1981SCMR979(1) (PLP) (Sh. MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on Record for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 19th April, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-2-1981, passed in S. A. O. No. 565 of 1975). S. 13(3)(a)(ii)--Eviction of tenant--Personal requirement Mere ownership of property in same urban area-Held, by itself no ground to refuse landlord's application for eviction of his tenant on ground of personal requirement.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on Record for Petitioner. Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 19th April, 1981. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 9-2-1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Second Appeal, arising out of an eviction order passed by a learned Rent Controller, filed by the respondent-landlords was allowed on the ground of bona fide require ment. Earlier, the First Appellate Court while allowing the petitioners appeal had set aside the eviction order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this petition: (1) that none of the witnesses examined from the respondents' side deposed about bona fide requirement; and (2) that the landlords owned other property in the same urban area. Mere ownership of property in the same urban area is by itself not ground to refuse the application of the landlord for eviction of his tenant on ground of personal requirement. With regard to the evidence led from the respondents' side, suffice it to observe that the copies of the depositions on the witnesses have not been placed on record so as to verify the statement made by the learned counsel with regard to the contents thereof. We accordingly find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.