M.A. TAHIR ISPHANI Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against his ejectment from a commercial shop. The petitioner, a tenant of Shop No. 63/7 Bank Road, Rawalpindi for approximately sixteen years, faced ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord, a lawyer, who sought the premises for personal use as an office. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and the District Judge dismissed the subsequent appeal. The High Court also dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the demised premises was required by the respondent in good faith for use as his office, given its location in a commercial area and the tenant's offer to construct an alternative room on the first floor. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by all lower forums regarding the landlord's personal need were unexceptionable and dismissed the petition, ruling that the landlord's requirement was established in good faith.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the personal need of a landlord for a rented premises can be interfered with?
- Does the location of a shop in a commercial area negate the landlord's good faith requirement for an office?
- Is a landlord bound to accept an offer by a tenant to construct an alternative room on the first floor in lieu of evicting the tenant from the ground floor shop?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 7-6-1983 passed in Writ Petition No,182 of 1983, against the ejectment of the petitioner from Shop No,63/7 Bank Road, Rawalpindi.
2.Petitioner occupied Shop No,63/7 Bank Road, Rawalpindi since about 16 years as tenant under the respondents. Ejectment petition was filed in the Court of the learned Rent Controller for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No, 3 a lawyer needed the shop for use as his office. The ejectment proceedings were contested by the petitioner but the learned Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment on 14-9-1982. Appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed by the District Judge, Rawalpindi per order, dated 9-4-1983. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
3.The only ground which the learned counsel for the petitioner. Urged before us is that the premises in question was not required by the respondent in good faith for use as his office because the suit premises is situate in a busy commercial area where lawyers' offices are not housed in shops and particularly in Saddar Area where a number of lawyers have their offices but the same are on the first floor; that the absence of good faith on the part of respondent is established from the fact that the petitioner had offered, in all the Courts below, to construct a room for the office of respondent No,3 on the first floor of the petitioner's shop at his own cost. We have considered these arguments but we do not find any force in them. All the Courts below have found that the respondent required the property in question for his personal use. The petition is without any merit