ABDUR REHMAN vs ABDUL HAFEEZ and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdur Rehman against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the eviction order passed against him by the Additional District Judge on the ground of personal need of the landlord, reversing the Rent Controller's dismissal of the ejectment application. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the eviction order based on personal need and the tenant's entitlement to discretionary relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no case on merits regarding the personal need of the landlord and further noted that the petitioner's conduct in seeking and accepting four months' time from the High Court to vacate the premises disentitled him to any further discretionary indulgence by the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a tenant who avails time granted by the High Court to vacate premises is entitled to seek further indulgence from the Supreme Court?
- Does an eviction order based on the personal need of the landlord warrant interference when examined concurrently by the appellate court and the High Court?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Rent Controller, Lahore, by order dated 6-3-1989 dismissed the application of Abdul Hafeez respondent for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop. When the matter came up in appeal, the Additional District Judge, Lahore, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and passed an order of eviction. Abdur Rehman then invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court.
2. ' Writ petition was dismissed by a learned judge in limine by order dated 20-8-1989. However, the learned Judge allowed the request of the petitioner's counsel and gave four months' time to vacate the shop.
3. ' Abdur Rehman aggrieved by the order of the High Court now seeks leave to appeal by this Court.
4. ' The sole ground on which the ejectment had been ordered was personal need of the landlord. This was duly examined by the Additional District Judge as well as the High Court.
5. The petitioner requested for some time. He was given four months by the High Court to vacate the premises, which means that during this period he wanted to make alternate arrangement to vacate the shop. This conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to any indulgence by this Court.
6. Even, otherwise, he has no case on merits.
7. ' 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.