Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1981 SCMR 711

PHOOL DIN AND Another vs ABDUL MAJID

Citation1981 SCMR 711
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 404 of 1979
Date1979-05-27
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahi Chauhan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J..--The dispute in this case is about a shop bearing No. 57/1 situated in Haroon Bazar, Bahawalnagar. Abdul Majid, hereinafter called the landlord, filed an application against the present petitioners for their eviction on the ground that he needed the shop for his personal use. The application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller on 29-7-1970.

2. The landlord filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 13-11-1970 and he set aside the order of the learned Rent controller andordered eviction of the tenants/petitioner.

3. The tenants/petitioners filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 475/ 70/BWP, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Circuit) on 9-4-1979.

The petitioners-tenants have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that 4/5 years ago Abdul Aziz father of the landlord Abdul Majid died as a result whereof some shop or shops of the deceased devolved b way of inheritance on Abdul Majid landlord. Requesting us to take notice of the subsequent development, it was argued that the fact that now the landlord was owner of some other shops as well, would react on the finding of the bona fide personal need of the landlord and for this reason he submitted that the orders of the Courts below should be set aside. The contention has no merit. According to the very submission, the father of the landlord died 4/5 years ago, but, strangely enough, no such plea was raised before the High Court where the matter remained pending from year 1970 upto 9-4-1979 during which period the petitioners enjoyed the fruits of a stay order which had been obtained by them. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case nor even a fit stage for allowing the petitioners to raise the plea aforesaid. As on the findings recorded by the learned District Judge and the High Court, the bona fide personal need of the landlord stands' duly established on the record, there exists no ground for grant of any special leave to the petitioners.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

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