1989 PLP 1800 (SCMR)
BUTT BROTHERS & CO. Petitioner Versus Mst. MAHBOOB BEGUM and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1800 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan,JJ |
| Parties | BUTT BROTHERS & CO. Petitioner Versus Mst. MAHBOOB BEGUM and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1800 (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 1989 PLP 1800 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan,JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1800 (SCMR) (BUTT BROTHERS & CO. Petitioner Versus Mst. MAHBOOB BEGUM and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Najmul Hasan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 25‑1‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.2876 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Rent Controller passed ejectment order on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑Appellate Court maintained ejectment order passed by Rent Controller on ground of default and also ordered ejectment on ground of personal need‑‑Held. finding of Rent Controller on issue of default in payment of rent which was maintained by Appellitte Court did not require interference nor finding of Appellate Court on issue of personal need suffered from any infirmity‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOO‑D JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner is in occupation of a shop and a room on McLeod Road, Lahore. The room and the shop formed part of the composite building. The room and the portion of the building overlying the shop were transferred to respondent No.1. The dispute between the parties relates to the room. On I1‑3‑1982, respondent No.1 brought an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent, personal need and damage. The application was resisted by the petitioner. The parties went to trial on a number of issues. The learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner was defaulter in the payment of rent but rejected the pleas of respondent No.l that she needed the property for personal need or that the petitioner had cause damage to the room. He directed the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground default in the payment of rent. The petitioner tiled an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge maintained the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of default and further went on to hold that the room in dispute was needed by respondent No.1 for the personal t her son. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of ejectment. It was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the finding on the issue of default was based on misreading of evidence and further that the learned Additional District .1ndue entirely ignored the evidence led by the petitioner to refute the plea of personal need. He further contends that respondent No.l was in possession of sufficient space which could adequately meet the requirements of her son.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that the finding t of the learned Rent Controller on the issue of default in the payment of rent which was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge requires interference. We are also not persuaded that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on the issue of personal need suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. MA.K/B‑103/S Petition dismissed,