Sh. MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a second appeal filed by respondent-landlords and passed an eviction order against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, reversing the First Appellate Court's decision. The core legal questions involve whether mere ownership of other property in the same urban area by a landlord bars an eviction claim, and whether the respondents' witnesses failed to depose regarding personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that mere ownership of other property in the same urban area is not by itself a ground to refuse an eviction application on the ground of personal requirement, and dismissed the petition due to a failure to place copies of witness depositions on record to substantiate the petitioner's claims. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's ownership of other property in an urban area does not automatically negate their bona fide personal requirement for evicting a tenant.
- Is mere ownership of property in the same urban area by a landlord sufficient ground to refuse an eviction application based on personal requirement?
- Can a petitioner challenge the appreciation of evidence regarding bona fide requirement without placing copies of witness depositions on the record?
ORDER
1. M UHAM M AD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 9-2-1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Second Appeal, arising out of an eviction order passed by a learned Rent Controller, filed by the respondent-landlords was allowed on the ground of bona fide require--ment. Earlier, the First Appellate Court while allowing the petitioners appeal had set aside the eviction order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this petition: (1) that none of the witnesses examined from the respondents' side deposed about bona fide requirement; and (2) that the landlords owned other property in the same urban area.
3. Mere ownership of property in the same urban area is by itself not ground to refuse the application of the landlord for eviction of his tenant on ground of personal requirement. With regard to the evidence led from the respondents' side, suffice it to observe that the copies of the depositions on the witnesses have not been placed on record so as to verify the statement made by the learned counsel with regard to the contents thereof.
4. We accordingly find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.