2006 PLD 774 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

NASIM AHMAD KHAN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 1981 SCMR 711, 1984 SCMR 741, 1985 SCMR 241, 1986 MLD 1342, 1986 SCMR 451, 1990 CLC 901, 1991 MLD 1335, 1997 SCMR 1986, 2003 SCMR 1416, 2004 CLC 862, 2004 SCMR 1568, 2004 SCMR 1614, 2004 SCMR 738, 2005 MLD 1232, 2005 SCMR 840, PLD 1985 SC 46, PLD 1991 SC 242, Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , ---S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Scope---No other residential property was owned by landlord in the concerned municipal area---Effect---Predecessor of landlords filed ejectment petition against tenant/petitioner, asserting therein that premises were required for his personal need and he did not have any other residential property in the concerned municipal area---Tenant, while contesting the ejectment petition, denied relationship of landlord and tenant and also averred that being a lawyer he used premises as office-cum-residence, which involved goodwill earned by tenant due to consistent use of his office---Rent Controller passed eviction order and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed---Validity---Proceedings under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 did not require adherence to strict legal procedure---Seeking ejectment on personal requirement was even simpler, for when landlord proved that lie had no other premises in his use and occupation in the concerned municipal area where his rented premises were situated, then statement of landlord was sufficient for ejectment order---Rent Controller was not bound to follow procedure provided in C.P.C. rather he could adopt any procedure for fair dispensation of justice---Rent Controller was to see bona fides of landlord and inquiry through evidence in that respect---Rent Controller being not a Court, therefore, provisions of C.P.C. as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 did not strictly apply to rent proceedings---Tenant's contention that as predecessor of landlord sought eviction of petitioner on ground of his personal need and did not mention in ejectment petition need of his family or children and on death of landlord ejectment proceedings abated, was not maintainable, in that the amended ejectment petition was filed by legal heirs of deceased (respondent's predecessor) wherein they categorically stated their personal need---Even otherwise need of landlord was the need of his family and personal need of landlord did not extinguish on the death of landlord---Court, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to shorten the litigation, could mould relief according to circumstances of the case---Mere shifting to another town due to non-availability of adequate accommodation did not disentitle landlord to seek eviction of tenant from their premises---Tenant's evidence was rightly closed as in remand order passed by Appellate Court, an opportunity was given to tenant for production of evidence but tenant did not avail the opportunity---Till the time the Court of competent jurisdiction decided about existence of agreement of sale, the same was not to be made basis for denying the right of landlord to receive rent or seek eviction of tenant---Tenant, had invoked jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution for reappraisal and assessment of evidence, which was not permissible in constitutional jurisdiction---Resolution of complicated questions of facts were beyond scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of Courts below could not be interfered with under Art.199 of the Constitution---Petition was dismissed.