1995SCMR139 (PLP)
REHMAT SHAH and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AMIR GUL and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR139 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAT SHAH and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AMIR GUL and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR139 (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 1995SCMR139 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR139 (PLP) (REHMAT SHAH and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AMIR GUL and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ismail Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12‑10‑1993 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in A.W.P. No.121 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Fresh application for ejectment of tenant on ground of personal requirement of premises‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Tenant's objection that earlier ejectment application having been dismissed, fresh application was barred under S. 14 of Ordinance, was repelled by Courts below on the ground that landlord, having fresh cause of action, could bring fresh ejectment application‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Subsequent application for ejectment on fresh cause of action was not barred under provision of S.14, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959‑‑ Respondent (one of the landlords) for whom premises in question were required, had since been retired and was jobless‑‑‑No evidence was brought on record. that he or any of his sons were employed or in occupation of any other premises in the same locality‑‑‑Findings of two competent forums that said landlord required premises in question for personal need, was not assailable in Constitutional jurisdiction before High Court‑‑‑No infirmity was pointed out in the judgment of High Court refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of competent forums in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to. appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought for against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 12‑10‑1993 in Writ Petition No. 1241 of 1992. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought for from the shop in question by the respondents on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and personal requirement which was contested by the petitioners amongst others on the plea that previously on the same ground the ejectment petition of the landlady had been dismissed thrice by the Controller of Rent and those orders were maintained in appeal. After framing of issues and recording evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller decided the issue of personal requirement in favour of the respondent. The objection raised that fresh ejectment petition was barred under section 14 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, was repelled on the ground that the respondent had a fresh cause action for bringing the present petition for ejectment. Accordingly;, the learned Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's' ejectment from the said shop vide his judgment dated 13‑2‑1992. The petitioners' appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 13‑12‑1992 confirming the aforementioned finding. Their Writ Petition was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide the judgment against which leave to appeal is prayed for. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of the record we find no force in contention of the learned counsel that the petition for ejectment was barred under section 14 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. Admittedly the previous petitions were brought by landlady and the last petition filed by the respondent was withdrawn with permission to file afresh one on a fresh cause of action. It is not denied that respondent No :2 has since been retired arid is jobless and he has got 5 sons and there is no evidence on the record that they are employed or that they have been in occupation of any other shop in the same premises. Such being the case the finding of the two forums of competent jurisdiction that the respondent required the said shop for personal need, was not assailable in writ jurisdiction before the High Court. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings in Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Stay order dated 3‑11‑1993 stands vacated. AA./R‑246/S Leave refused