1980 PLP 906 (SCMR)
UMAR DIN-Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 906 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -----S. 13(2) (iii)-Material impairment of value or utility of building -Eviction of tenant-Courts below concurrently recording finding of fact as to tenant having removed two doors between two rooms and having damaged its walls-Material impairment, held, shown and no room for interference with such finding of fact-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185(3)-Finding of fact. |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, C. J., Dorab Patel and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR DIN-Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 906 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 906 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -----S. 13(2) (iii)-Material impairment of value or utility of building -Eviction of tenant-Courts below concurrently recording finding of fact as to tenant having removed two doors between two rooms and having damaged its walls-Material impairment, held, shown and no room for interference with such finding of fact-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185(3)-Finding of fact. bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C. J., Dorab Patel and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 906 (SCMR) (UMAR DIN-Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 15th July, 1980,
- Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 25-5-1977 in S. A. O. No. 1290 of 1977). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
S. 13(2) (iii)-Material impairment of value or utility of building -Eviction of tenant-Courts below concurrently recording finding of fact as to tenant having removed two doors between two rooms and having damaged its walls-Material impairment, held, shown and no room for interference with such finding of fact-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185(3)-[Finding of fact].
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C, J‑The petitioner is aggrieved. by $n order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 25th of May 1977, by which the second appeal filed by him against an order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller, was dismissed. The respondent landlord had moved for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the months of November and December, 1973, and also flu the ground of damaging the property and thus impairing its utility. Both the grounds were accepted by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Additional District Judge in first appeal, and by the High Court in second appeal, although the learned Judge in the High Court has observed that he might have takes, a lenient view on the question of default for the reason that the tenant had deposited Rs. 1,000 as ‑security with the landlord. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the damage alleged by the landlord, namely, the removal of doors and tampering with the walls of the shop, was not such as to materially impair the utility of the property, and, therefore, it did not constitute a ground for the petitioner's eviction. There is no merit in these submissions, as all the three Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had removed the two doors between the two rooms constituting the demised property, and has also damaged its walls. There is no room for our interference with this finding of fact, which shows material impairment. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is, however given two months time‑ to vacate the premises. Petition dismissed.