PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English
← Back to rent laws

2015 CLC 1009 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Punjab · 2015

Full text

Syed IRFAN ALI SHAH VS MUHAMMAD IMRAN 2008 CLC 136, 2014 SCMR 630, Eviction petition--Term , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--15 , S. 15---eviction petition---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Non-framing of issues---Effect---Breach of terms of rent deed by tenant---Contention of tenant was that neither any issue was framed with regard to personal bona fide need nor parties had adduced evidence on such ground---Ejectment petition was accepted concurrently---Validity---Landlord in his eviction petition besides raising other grounds had took up a ground of personal bonafide need which had been reiterated in the evidence produced by him---Tenant was abreast of such ground and he also tried unsuccessfully to rebut the same by producing evidence---Tenant had never objected to non-framing of proper issues throughout the proceedings---Non-framing of an issue on bonafide personal need was not fatal to the landlord's case as both the parties had adduced evidence in accordance with their pleadings---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were not stricto sensu applicable in rent matters---No illegality or jurisdictional defect was committed by the courts below while passing eviction order on the ground of personal bona fide need---Non-framing of proper issue was a technical flaw which if not agitated at relevant time could be overruled for advancement of justice---Parties could not be put to another round of litigation when sufficient material was available on record to decide the matter on merit---Both the courts below were justified in arriving at a conclusion that landlord required the demised premises for his personal bona fide need in good faith---Landlord had choice to point out which particular property was required for his personal bona fide need---Tenant had breached the terms and conditions of rent deed---No misreading and non-reading of evidence was pointed out in the impugned orders/judgments---Second appeal was dismissed with costs in circumstances.