1983 PLP 715 (SCMR)
GHULAM MOHYUDDIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIR BIBI-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 715 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MOHYUDDIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIR BIBI-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 715 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 715 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 715 (SCMR) (GHULAM MOHYUDDIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIR BIBI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana. Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Allah Nawaz Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 3rd May, 1980.
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana. Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Allah Nawaz Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 4th August, 1979, in S. A. O. No. 538/79). -- Art. 185 (3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (3) (ii) (a)-Ejectment on ground of bona fide requirement of landlady-Finding of fact by Courts below that landlady bona fide required disputed shop for her husband based on evidence brought on record-Held, cannot be interfered with by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana. Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Allah Nawaz Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing : 3rd May, 1980. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑This is petition by Ghulam Mohyuddin petitioner who eras directed to be evicted from the shop in dispute by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 3rd June, 1979 on the ground that it was needed by the spouse (husband) of the respon dent (landlady). for his personal requirement/use inasmuch as be was doing business in a rented shop and wanted to shift to do business in the present shop. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the learned District Judge on 8th July, 1979 and his second appeal being S. A. O. No. 538/79 also met the same fate as it was dismissed by the High Court on 4th August, 1979.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding o the Courts below on the bona fide requirement of the landlady (to be more precise of her husband) was not correct. The contention has no merit. All three Courts on the subject have found against the petitioner on the evidence brought on record and on our part we feel no justification to interfere in this factual matter or to differ from them in any manner. It has come on the record that the husband of landlady is already doing business which shows that plea of doing business on the part of the husband is not a new enterprise to be now embarked upon by him for a the first time. Similarly the plea that the shop already in his occupation is a rented shop supports his case further when he says he wants to shift to the present shop. It has further been proved that the husband of the landlady had earlier another shop with him from which he was evicted and thereafter, started doing business in the rented shop presently in h1S occupation. If in order to avoid such like constant threats of eviction the present shop is required by him for personal use, his need is quite genuine and perfectly bona fide.
3. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, we grant four months to the petitioner to vacate the shop subject to his continuing to pay the rent regularly in accordance with law. Petition allowed.