2008 PLP 1457 (SCMR)
ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZUBAIDAH BIBI and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1457 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZUBAIDAH BIBI and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1457 (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 2008 PLP 1457 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1457 (SCMR) (ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZUBAIDAH BIBI and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mrs. Roshan Ara, Advocate Supreme Court and A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd December, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12th November, 2003 of the Lahore High Court passed in S.A.O. No.137 of 2003).
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Bona fide personal need of landlord--Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below
Landlord after expiry of period of tenancy, filed ejectment petition on the ground of bona fide personal need
Petition was allowed by Rent Controller and eviction order was passed
Appeal against eviction order was maintained by Appellate Court as well as by High Court
Contention of tenant was that landlord had not raised any plea of bona fide personal need during the period of six years, therefore, the ground of personal need lacked bona fides
Even in presence of dire personal need of landlord, he was debarred from filing ejectment petition before expiry of the period of lease fixed in the agreement
After expiry of lease period, if petition was filed on personal need, the same could not be alleged to be mala fide merely because landlord did not file ejectment petition earlier which was not of his fault
Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below on the question of personal need did not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
The ejectment petition filed by the respondents to seek eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute was accepted through order, dated 30-4-2003 by the Rent Controller against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment, dated 15-10-2003 and second appeal filed by him has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 12-11-2003 by the Lahore High Court against which leave is sought.
2. The petitioner was granted lease of this shop for a fixed period of six years which admittedly expired on 1-2-2001. On 5-2-2001, the respondents filed the instant ejectment petition on the ground of personal need which was held to have been proved as a matter of fact by evidence by all the Courts below. The defence plea raised by the petitioner that he had spent an amount of Rs.69,000 on the shop was also accepted and the said amount was ordered to be adjusted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the terms of the original lease, the petitioner could be granted further lease on fresh terms and conditions as to payment of rent. According to her, the ejectment petition in these circumstances could not be filed. She also argued that for six years, the respondents did not raise any plea of personal need, therefore, the ground of personal need now raised lacked bona fides.
3. None of the contentions has any force. Under the law, even in the presence of dire personal need of the landlord, he was debarred from filing the ejectment petition before the expiry of the period of lease fixed in the agreement, therefore, after the expiry of the lease period, if petition was filed on personal need, the same could not be alleged to be mala fide merely because he earlier did not file the ejectment petition which was not of his fault.
4. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on the question of personal need do not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./A-17/SC Petition dismissed.