Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2008 SCMR 1457

ARSHAD ALI vs Mst. ZUBAIDAH BIBI and 2 others

Citation2008 SCMR 1457
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,2919-L of 2003
Date2003-12-23
Judge(s)Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Munir A. Sheikh
ResultPetition dismissed

' The ejectment petition filed by the respondents to seek eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute was accepted through order, dated 30-4-2003 by the Rent Controller against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment, dated 15-10-2003 and second appeal filed by him has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 12-11-2003 by the Lahore High Court against which leave is sought.

2. The petitioner was granted lease of this shop for a fixed period of six years which admittedly expired on 1-2-2001. On 5-2-2001, the respondents filed the instant ejectment petition on the ground of personal need which was held to have been proved as a matter of fact by evidence by all the Courts below. The defence plea raised by the petitioner that he had spent an amount of Rs,69,000 on the shop was also accepted and the said amount was ordered to be adjusted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the terms of the original lease, the petitioner could be granted further lease on fresh terms and conditions as to payment of rent.

According to her, the ejectment petition in these circumstances could not be filed. She also argued that for six years, the respondents did not raise any plea of personal need, therefore, the ground of personal need now raised lacked bona fides.

3. None of the contentions has any force. Under the law, even in the presence of dire personal need of the landlord, he was debarred from filing the ejectment petition before the expiry of the period of lease fixed in the agreement, therefore, after the expiry of the lease period, if petition was filed on personal need, the same could not be alleged to be mala fide merely because he earlier did not file the ejectment petition which was not of his fault.

4. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on the question of personal need do not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch