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

2010 YLR 1490 ISLAMABAD

ICT · 2010

Full text

ZAFAR MEHMOOD VS KHAN AYAZ KHAN 1983 CLC 237, 1986 SCMR 637, 1987 CLC 1407, 1993 MLD 1217, 2005 CLC 1119, Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--17 , S.17---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant on grounds of bona fide personal need, reconstruction and expiry of lease agreements---Ejectment petition had concurrently been allowed by the two courts below---Landlord in support of his oral version had placed on record documentary evidence as well which had revealed that he was carrying on business of sale and distribution of electronic components in rented premises; and he required the demised premises for his own bona fide personal use for establishing the said business in his own premises--Ejectment petitions filed by the landlord had been accepted mainly in view of his bona fide personal need---Other grounds taken by the landlord pertaining to the renovation of the shops and expiry of lease period were ancillary one---Validity---Landlord could not be non-suited merely on the ground that while filing the petition under S.17 of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 beside the ground of bona fide personal need he had also taken the ground of renovation of the demised premises and that the lease period had already been expired---Contention of counsel for the tenants that expiry of the lease period was not a valid ground available for their eviction under S.17 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001; and that the grounds of bona fide personal need of the landlord as well as the reconstruction of demised premises, could not be taken together as both were destructive to each other, carried no weight in the facts and circumstances of the case---In absence of any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments concurrently passed by the courts below, same could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.