Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AISHA BIBI VS Respondent: ABDUL WAHAB
1988 S C M R 1746
1988 S C M R 1746
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
AISHA BIBI and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
ABDUL WAHAB and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.540 of 1988, decided on 20th June, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 28‑5‑1988‑ passed in W.P.No.2718 of 1988).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment‑ Finding of fact‑‑ Interference with‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal need, challenged‑‑Points raised relating to pure procedure regarding which conduct of petitioners' side was highlighted by High Court which went against them‑‑Provisions of C..P.C. were not strictly applicable to cases under Ordinance VI of 1959 and no injustice was otherwise done to tenants' side on account of procedure adopted by Rent Controller in circumstances of the case‑‑On questions of personal need and alleged repairs Supreme Court found no justification to interfere as findings of fact were against petitioners‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Nawab Saeedullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th June, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Petitioners, the tenants' side in an urban ejectment matter, seeks leave to appeal against an ejectment order (on ground of requirement), and the dismissal of their Writ Petition, in that behalf, by the High Court.
Learned counsel has reiterated the following points which were raised before the High Court:‑
"(1) That no issue was framed on preliminary objection No. 2.
(2) That no issue was framed regarding preliminary objection No.3.
(3) That burden of all the issues was on petitioners tenants, which has led to miscarriage of justice.
(4) That issue No.3 relating to the bona fide need of the landlord has not been properly determined".
A learned Judge in the High Court dealt with all the points and found the answers against the petitioners. We have also heard the learned counsel at some length in support of these points. Some relate to pure procedure regarding which the conduct of petitioner side highlighted by the High . Court, goes against them. Moreover admittedly the provisions of C . P. C . not being strictly applicable, no injustice has otherwise been done to the tenants side on account of the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller, in the circumstances of this case. Regarding the questions of personal need and the alleged repairs also, there is no justification for this Court to interfere; as the findings of fact are against the petitioners.' Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
M.I./A‑278/S Petition dismissed.