Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TAYYABA VS Respondent: FAZAL ELAHIHonorable Justice Saad Saood Jan
1988 S C M R 416
1988 S C M R 416
Before Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Mst. TAYYABA and others Petitioners
versus
Ch. FAZAL ELAHI and others--Respondents
Civil Petition No.774 of 1987, decided on 22nd December, 1987.
(From the judgment dated 30-6-1987 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.2437 of 1986).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--
---S.13--Ejectment of tenant ordered by Rent Controller on ground that the house in dispute was needed by landlord for purpose of reconstruction--District Judge on appeal thinking that the reconstruction intended to be undertaken could be carried out without evicting tenant set aside order of Rent Controller-- High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, on finding that Appellate Court had misread the record declared its order to be without lawful authority and restored that of Rent Controller--High Court, held, was right in finding that the Lower Appellate Court had misread the record, for proposed construction could not be carried out without getting the house vacated--Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd December 1987.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J--The petitioners are occupying a house as tenant under respondent No.1 who filed an application for their eviction. One of the pleas taken by respondent No.1 was that he needed the house for the purpose of reconstruction. The Rent Controller found merit in this plea and allowed the application. On appeal the Additional District Judge thought that the reconstruction intended to be undertaken by respondent No.1 could be carried out without evicting the petitioners. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Respondent No.1 invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the order of the Additional District Judge. The High Court found that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the record. Consequently, it declared the order of the learned Additional District Judge to be. without lawful authority and restored that of the learned Rent Controller. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners an also seen the plan showing the existing position of the house and the plan of the proposed construction. We agree with the High Court that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the record, for, the proposed construction cannot be carried out without getting the house vacated. Leave is accordingly refused.
S.Q./T-18/S Leave refused.