2010 CLC 1095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE BUTT VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 1986 CLC 448, 1994 CLC 1302, 2000 SCMR 903, 2001 CLC 1641, PLD 1982 SC 218, PLD 2001 SC 158, Appeal--TERM , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--15 , Ss. 13(3)(11),(4) & 15---Ejectment of tenant on ground of bona fide personal need---Appeal---Landlord instituted an ejectment petition on ground of personal requirement of his son---During the pendency of ejectment petition, landlord died and his son appeared as a witness in support of his personal requirement---Rent Controller ordered ejectment of tenant on ground of personal bona fide need, and Appellate Court having affirmed order of the Rent Controller tenant had filed second appeal---Validity--Son of landlord for whom shop in question was sought to be ejected, though when he made statement was an employee, in a Firm, but he wanted to do his own business---It was fundamental right of every person/citizen to do his business for the better earning and livelihood and improve his financial resources---If the person in service wanted to do the business in his own property for his business object, it could not be held that such service/employment should have any reflection upon his need---It was for the tenant to establish on the record the facts/factors, which militated against the bona fide of the landlord in that behalf and to establish the dishonesty of the purpose, that however, was conspicuously lacking in the case, particularly when son of the landlord had unequivocally stated that he would occupy the property himself of his business and in case it was not done, he would give it back to the tenant---Even otherwise sufficient check was available under S.13(4) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein it had been provided that if the landlord pursuant to the eviction order on personal requirement did not occupy the property within one month of the date of obtaining the possession or relet the property, evicted tenant could apply to Rent Controller for an order directing that he would be restored possession of such property and Rent Controller should make an order accordingly---Concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below were neither infirm on account of misreading and non-reading nor for misapplication/non-application of the proper law, same could not be interfered in second appeal.