Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASIF VS Respondent: NOOR AHMADHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1398
1988 S C M R 1398
Muhammad Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASIF‑‑Petitioner
versus
NOOR AHMAD and 7 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1116 of 1984, decided on 22nd May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27‑11‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.3432 of 1984).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
‑‑S.13‑‑Electmeut on ground of personal need of landlord‑‑High Court, noted material placed on record from landlord which established bona fide personal requirement of landlord including the fact that landlord was occupying one shop since 1947 which was no longer fit for his use for business which had expanded during these years and that landlord's bona fide need was for more space and that is why the shop in dispute was purchased by him‑‑Such finding of High Court suffered from no infirmity‑‑Supreme Court declined interference.
Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S.M. Tayyab. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Nemo for Respondents Nos.l, 4 to 8
Date of hearing: 22nd May 198
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.‑‑This is a leave to appeal petition by a tenant in a rent restriction matter. He was ordered to be evicted on ground of personal requirement of the respondents side. His appeal and Writ Petition were dismissed He has now sought leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel has contended that the material placed on record from the respondents‑side failed to establish their bona fide personal requirement. Same point was raised before the High Court. It noted the material brought on record to this behalf including the fact that the respondents/ landlords were occupying one shop since 1947. It was no longer fit for their use for business which had expanded during these years and that the respondents' bona fide need was for more space and that is why the shop in dispute was purchased by them.
3. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition, we find no justification to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court. It does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
M.B.A. /M‑473/S Leave refused.