1995 SCMR 146
1995 SCMR 146
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sajjad Ali Shah and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ
ABID MASOOD and othersPetitioners
versus
DILSHAD KHANRespondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 14 of 1994, decided on 3rd April, 1994.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 27111993, in SAO 10/1993).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)----
S. 13Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Bona fide personal need of landlordQuantum of proof Ejectment of tenant from shop in question, on account of requiring same in good faith for personal use of landlord's sonLandlords owned numerous shops in the building and during pendency of proceedings got vacated some shops which were let out to tenantsLandlords in post remand proceedings had opportunity to lead evidence to show that shops having fallen vacant during pendency of ejectment proceedings were not suitable for their use but they led no evidence in that behalfEvidence produced by landlords was vague and fell short of proving their bona fide personal need for the shop in questionHigh Court was correct in maintaining order of Rent Controller rejecting landlord's eviction applicationLeave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Pir Iltaf Hussain Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994.
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.The petitioners seek leave to appeal from order dated 27111993, of a learned Judge in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in SAO No. 10 of 1993.
The relevant facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that Haji Abdul Qadeer the predecessorininterest of the petitioners on 3111987, filed application seeking ejectment of Dilshad Khan respondent from shop No. 20 of Building No. B22A, Bara Market, Rawalpindi City on the grounds:
(i) Default in payment of rent.
(ii) Subletting the shop.
(iii) Required in good faith for personal use of petitioner's son.
The ejectment petition was resisted by the respondent on all the grounds. In regard to the personal need it was asserted in reply to para. 4 of the petition, that the landlord owned 36 shops in the Moti Mahal Market and that he did not require in good faith the shop in question for his personal need. The learned Rent Controller framed following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties:
"(1) Whether the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rent?
(2) Whether the respondent has sublet the disputed property unauthorisedly?
(3) Whether the petitioner has personal need of the disputed premises in good faith?
(4) Relief."
After recording evidence led by the parties decided all the issues against the landlord and on 3171990, rejected the ejectment petition. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, maintained findings of the Rent Controller on the ground of default as well as subletting but reversed the decision on the question of personal need. Consequently he allowed the ejectment petition and directed the respondent to vacate the disputed shop.
The respondent assailed the aforesaid order through SAO 4/1994 which was accepted by the learned High Court and the case was remanded to the Additional District Judge for fresh decision. On remand the Additional District Judge again allowed the ejectment petition. The respondent went in appeal before the High Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the first appellate authority for redecision of the matter. Once again the learned Additional District Judge allowed the ejectment petition which order was set aside by the learned Single Judge through impugned order and dismissed the ejectment petition. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
In support of this petition learned counsel for petitioners contended that the personal need of the landlord stood established from the evidence on record but the learned High Court did not discuss the evidence and erroneously rejected the ejectment petition.
The petitioners opted not to file copies of the evidence produced by the parties in this case, despite having availed an opportunity in this behalf, the contention raised by the learned counsel, therefore, cannot successfully be pressed into service. We have, however, perused the various orders passed by the Courts below and find that the petitioners owned numerous shops in the building and during the pendency of these proceedings got vacated some shops which were let out to tenants. In postremand proceedings the petitioners had opportunity to lead evidence to show that the shops having fallen vacant during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings were not suitable for their use but led no evidence in this behalf. The perusal of the order of the Rent Controller, shows that the evidence produced by the petitioners was vague and fell short of proving their bona fide personal need for the shop in question.
In these circumstances, in our view this is not a fit case to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Lahore High Court maintaining the order of the Rent Controller rejecting petitioners' eviction petition filed against the respondent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.
A.A./A1163/S Leave refused.
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sajjad Ali Shah and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ
ABID MASOOD and othersPetitioners
versus
DILSHAD KHANRespondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 14 of 1994, decided on 3rd April, 1994.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 27111993, in SAO 10/1993).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)----
S. 13Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Bona fide personal need of landlordQuantum of proof Ejectment of tenant from shop in question, on account of requiring same in good faith for personal use of landlord's sonLandlords owned numerous shops in the building and during pendency of proceedings got vacated some shops which were let out to tenantsLandlords in post remand proceedings had opportunity to lead evidence to show that shops having fallen vacant during pendency of ejectment proceedings were not suitable for their use but they led no evidence in that behalfEvidence produced by landlords was vague and fell short of proving their bona fide personal need for the shop in questionHigh Court was correct in maintaining order of Rent Controller rejecting landlord's eviction applicationLeave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Pir Iltaf Hussain Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994.
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.The petitioners seek leave to appeal from order dated 27111993, of a learned Judge in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in SAO No. 10 of 1993.
The relevant facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that Haji Abdul Qadeer the predecessorininterest of the petitioners on 3111987, filed application seeking ejectment of Dilshad Khan respondent from shop No. 20 of Building No. B22A, Bara Market, Rawalpindi City on the grounds:
(i) Default in payment of rent.
(ii) Subletting the shop.
(iii) Required in good faith for personal use of petitioner's son.
The ejectment petition was resisted by the respondent on all the grounds. In regard to the personal need it was asserted in reply to para. 4 of the petition, that the landlord owned 36 shops in the Moti Mahal Market and that he did not require in good faith the shop in question for his personal need. The learned Rent Controller framed following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties:
"(1) Whether the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rent?
(2) Whether the respondent has sublet the disputed property unauthorisedly?
(3) Whether the petitioner has personal need of the disputed premises in good faith?
(4) Relief."
After recording evidence led by the parties decided all the issues against the landlord and on 3171990, rejected the ejectment petition. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, maintained findings of the Rent Controller on the ground of default as well as subletting but reversed the decision on the question of personal need. Consequently he allowed the ejectment petition and directed the respondent to vacate the disputed shop.
The respondent assailed the aforesaid order through SAO 4/1994 which was accepted by the learned High Court and the case was remanded to the Additional District Judge for fresh decision. On remand the Additional District Judge again allowed the ejectment petition. The respondent went in appeal before the High Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the first appellate authority for redecision of the matter. Once again the learned Additional District Judge allowed the ejectment petition which order was set aside by the learned Single Judge through impugned order and dismissed the ejectment petition. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
In support of this petition learned counsel for petitioners contended that the personal need of the landlord stood established from the evidence on record but the learned High Court did not discuss the evidence and erroneously rejected the ejectment petition.
The petitioners opted not to file copies of the evidence produced by the parties in this case, despite having availed an opportunity in this behalf, the contention raised by the learned counsel, therefore, cannot successfully be pressed into service. We have, however, perused the various orders passed by the Courts below and find that the petitioners owned numerous shops in the building and during the pendency of these proceedings got vacated some shops which were let out to tenants. In postremand proceedings the petitioners had opportunity to lead evidence to show that the shops having fallen vacant during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings were not suitable for their use but led no evidence in this behalf. The perusal of the order of the Rent Controller, shows that the evidence produced by the petitioners was vague and fell short of proving their bona fide personal need for the shop in question.
In these circumstances, in our view this is not a fit case to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Lahore High Court maintaining the order of the Rent Controller rejecting petitioners' eviction petition filed against the respondent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.
A.A./A1163/S Leave refused.
Comments
Post a Comment