1994 PLP 1048 (CLC)
Messrs SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD.‑‑‑Petitioners Versus TARIQ JAMAL and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1048 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J |
| Parties | Messrs SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD.‑‑‑Petitioners Versus TARIQ JAMAL and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1048 (CLC)?
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 1994 PLP 1048 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1048 (CLC) (Messrs SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD.‑‑‑Petitioners Versus TARIQ JAMAL and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Iqbal Hussain Kalanauri for Petitioners. M.R. Jan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13(3)(a)(i)(ii)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Personal bona fide need of landlord‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Courts below after fully discussing entire evidence on record and thrashing out issue relating to personal bona fide need of landlord had concurrently found that premises was required by landlord for his personal use‑‑‑Concurrent finding of fact of Courts below based on evidence on record, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, especially when no illegality warranting interference was pointed out.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Whether the petitioners require the shop in dispute in good faith for their bona fide personal use and occupation? OPA. (2) Relief.
4. By order dated 5‑9‑1990 of the learned Rent Controller the ejectment was ordered and the same was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 11‑2‑1991.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged only one point that the application for ejectment was not maintainable against the present petitioners as the rented premises are in the name of M/s. Service Industries Ltd., whereas ejectment application has been filed against M/s. Service Shoes (Pvt.) Limited. It is further conceded that the property in dispute is' the same and that this point has not been taken up in the written statement filed before the learned Rent Controller.
6. Admittedly rent note has not been filed in support of the contentions of the petitioners nor any evidence was led to this effect. Both the Courts below have dealt with the issue of personal requirement and came to a finding of fact in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and there is no positive evidence to the contrary which could warrant interference by this Court. It is further held that the respondents are not owner of any other property. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any documentary evidence to this effect.
8. It is also admitted that the petitioners were tenants of the property for 15 years which has already been expired. The entire evidence recorded on both the sides has been fully discussed in the two orders impugned in this petition.
9. The learned counsel stated that the respondents‑landlords are doing joint business in the. adjoining property. This plea has also been discussed in para. 4 of the order of the appellate authority. Despite this the legal proposition has been discussed and there is a finding that the respondents landlords needed the property for their personal use.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the possession of the property has already been delivered to the respondents and no case is made out for the interference in the impugned orders.
11. I have gone through the order of the Rent Controller as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court and am of opinion that the issue regarding personal use has been fully thrashed out and no illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners which warrant interference in this case. For the aforesaid reasons I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S‑394/1, Petition dismissed.