Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YAQOOB VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGEHonorable Justice Gul Muhammad KhanS. Waheedur Rehman Gilani,M.D. Chaudhry
1988 M L D 1674
1988 M L D 1674
[Lahore]
Before Gul Muhammad Khan, J
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1010 of 1981, decided on 28th April, 1984.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑--
-‑‑‑S. 13(3)(1)(a)‑‑Eviction on ground of bona fide personal need of landlord and his family‑‑Person holding property could be evicted for need of child of landlord but not otherwise‑‑No eviction could be granted on ground of need of son of brother of landlord.
S. Waheedur Rehman Gilani for Petitioner.
M.D. Chaudhry for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 28th April, 1984.
JUDGMENT
This petition is directed against the orders dated 27th November, 1980, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and maintaining the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 21st May, 1980. In both the orders, the learned Rent Controller, as well as the learned Additional District Judge held that the room in dispute was needed by the respondent No.3 for Fateh Muhammad who admittedly, is not his son but son of his brother and whose mother married him, after his elder brother died.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the son of brother is not a child of the petitioner, he could not sue for ejectment of the petitioner under section 13(3)(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also referred to the same provision but stated that as Fateh Muhammad was living with the petitioner and as he is the son of his wife from previous marriage, he could be considered as his child. He however, is not in a position to support this contention by any case law. On reading the above provision, it will be quite clear that a person holding the property can be evicted for a person who must be a child of the landlord butt not otherwise. ‑Admittedly, Fateh Muhammad is not placed in that position. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be maintained.
In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are declared to be. without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties shall bear their own costs.
M.Y.H./3544/L Case remanded.