1988 PLD 734 SUPREME-COURT

Full text

PARVAIZ AKHTAR VS MUHAMMAD AHSAN Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , S. 17(4) (b)??eviction application??Commercial building??Premises required fbr personal need was not required by all the three owners jointly but only by one of them??Effect??Held, one of the landlords could take advantage of S.17(4)(b) particularly, when the other co?sharers had joined him in seeking eviction of the tenant.S.17(4)(b)??Requirement of premises on ground of personal need of landlord??Contention of tenant raising a question of fact that premises was not required bona fide by landlord for his clinic as he was an inexperienced doctor and was in Government service??High Court, having appreciated the evidence led by the parties recorded a finding adverse to the tenant, which suffered from no infirmity?Supreme Court declined interference. [p. 736]