NAZIR AHMAD AND Another vs GHULAM NABI AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioners' second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the eviction of the tenant petitioners from the shop in dispute on the grounds of default in rent, personal use, and reconstruction. The core legal question is whether a landlord's occupation of another rented shop in the same urban area disqualifies them from seeking the eviction of a tenant from their own shop for personal use in good faith. The Supreme Court held that the occupation of a rented shop by a landlord does not constitute a disqualification in law for seeking eviction from their own property. The Court established the principle that a landlord is not barred from seeking eviction for personal use merely because they are currently occupying a rented premises, and dismissed the petition as lacking merit.
- Does the occupation of a rented shop by a landlord disqualify them in law from seeking the eviction of a tenant from their own shop for personal use?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding personal use and reconstruction can be interfered with without showing a legal or factual mistake?
ORDER
KARAM ELLAHI CHAUHAN, J.-Ghulam NABI and another, respondent: filed an application for eviction of the petitioners tenants from the shop in dispute bearing No. B-1-17-S-495, situated in Hafizabad, on the ground of default in payment so. Rent, requirement for, personal use, and reconstruc--tion. The learned Rent Controller on 20-5-1968, accepted the application and directed the eviction of the tenant petitioners.
2. The petitioners filed an appeal with was dismissed on 8-1-1970 by the learned District Judge.
3. The petitioners filed a second appeal being S. A. O. 37/70 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by High Court 'on 27-11-1975.
4. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. Learned counsel argued that the respondents bad already a rented shop in the same urban area therefore their need for their personal use was not in good faith. The contention has no merit.
Occupation of a rented shop by a landlord is not a disqualification in law for asking for eviction of a tenant from own shop on the ground above mentioned. The need for personal use and reconstruction has duly been established on the record and learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal of factual mistake therein.
6. The result is that this petition has n6 merit and is dismissed hereby. The tenants/petitioners had obtained a stay order from this Court in the year 1976 and have been retaining the possession of the shop on this basis until now. We do not think that in these circumstances, they deserve grant of any further time for vacating the shop. They are directed to vacate the shop forthwith without objection and should deliver possession to the landlords voluntarily in good grace.
Cited by 1 case
- Col. (Retd.) Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs RAZA K. MINHAS 1991 CLC 2039