Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MESSRS DADA LTD. VS Respondent: MADRASA MAZHARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Muhammad Afzal Zullah Title: MESSRS DADA LTD. vs MADRASA MAZHARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-19 of 1981 Second Appeal No.
229 of 1973 Date of Judgment:1981-08-21 Reported As: 1983 SCMR 400 Result: petition dismissed Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to Appeal has been sought from Judgment dated. 5-11-1980 of the Sind High Court whereby a second appeal arising out of order of eviction of the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1.959, was dismissed. The learned Rent Controller found the ground of bona fide require--ment as established. On confirmation of this finding, the petitioner's first appeal was dismissed. The contention raised from the petitioner's side was that the requirement of the Respondents/landlords was not bona fide. One of the grounds urged on behalf the Petitioner before the High Court was that the Respondents/landlords had mentioned the property in dispute as the only premises owned by them which was required for their use. But, during the trial it transpired that another plot of land which was being utilized as an Eidgah could also be utilized by the Respondent/landlords for the same purpose which was made the basis of the eviction application. It was also argued that the Eidgah could be used otherwise than as an Eidgah because there was nothing in the relevant law to prohibit such a use of the Eidgah by the Respon--dents. The learned Single Judge in the High Court considered the point regarding bona fides of the respondents/landlords- and took into account all the relevant circumstances in this behalf. It was not necessary to decide the other wider question with regard to the possible uses of an Eidgah because the property in dispute in this case is separate from the property which is being utilized as an Eidgah. After hearing the lear--ned counsel, we do not find any justification for re-opening the question of the bona fide requirement of the Respondents as it stands concluded by unexceptionable concurrent findings of fact. This petition is accord--ingly dismissed.