Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1972 SCMR 561

Malik NISAR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs ABDUL RAUF

Citation1972 SCMR 561
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 34-P of 1972 S. A. O. No. 53 of
Date1972-12-19
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, Sheikh Anwarul Haq
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-Petitioner No. 1, Malik Nisar Mohammad, is a tenant of the respondent, Abdul Rauf (who is also his brother) in Shop No. 2553/AR, situate in Bazar Dalgaran, Peshawar City. The respondent applied to the Rent Controller for the petitioners' ejectment on two counts :--

(a) that the tenant bad sublet the property to petitioner No. 2, Abdul Hamid, without the consent of the landlord ; and

(b) that the shop was needed in good faith by the landlord for his personal use.

2. The application was, however, dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 1-12-69.

3. Thereupon, the respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, by his order dated the 28th of March 19,0, on the ground that the shop was needed by the landlord in good faith for his personal use. The learned Additional District Judge does not appear to have recorded any finding on the question of subletting.

4. Aggrieved by the appellate order of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners filed a second appeal in the High Court which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 8th of March 1972.

5. Not much reasoning or argument is needed to see that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have no substance whatsoever. In the application for ejectment the respondent was not required to spell out all the evidence or factors in support of his personal requirement, and these things had to be stated only during the course of evidence. The Courts below have rightly observed that the circumstances of the respondent, namely, that his children were growing up and he could no longer carry on the business of shoe-making at his house, clearly established his Bona fide personal need. No justification is made out for our interference in the matter.

6. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Cited by 7 cases

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