Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 27‑R of 1975, decided on 23rd May 1975.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on the 25th of February 1975, in S. A. O. No. 90 of 1975).

West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)

‑ S. 13(3)‑Ejectment‑Requirement for own use‑‑Requirement for personal use of entire body of landlords or use of male children of all landlords taken together‑Not contemplated by law under S. 13(3)‑Landlord requiring property bona fide for his own use or for use of any of his male children‑-Entitled to ask for possession- Property jointly owned by more than one person‑‑.Requirement fulfilled if property needed by any one of them or for use of male children of any of them.

McIntyre and another v. Hardcastle 1948 (2) K B 82 not approved.

Syed Rathid Hussain and Z others v. Hussain Haji Ahmed P L D 1973 Kar. 37 approved.

Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 23rd May 1975.

‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 25‑2‑1975, whereby he has dismissed in limine a second appeal filed by the petitioner to challenge an order of ejectment made against him by the Rent Controller, Gujjar Khan, and upheld in first appeal by the District Judge, Rawalpindi, in respect of a shop situate in Gujjar Khan town. The ejectment had been sought by the respondents on the ground that the shop was required for the personal use of at least two of them who wanted to start their own business in the said shop.

Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the Courts below have erred in law in thinking that the condition of personal requirement and use, as contemplated by the relevant clause of subsection (3) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was fulfilled even though the shop was not required by the entire body of landlords but only by some of them. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of joint owners of a property the term 'landlord' has to be construed in the plural, and, therefore, the personal requirement must be the requirement of all the owners, and only some of them are not entitled to get the shop vacated for their use. as such a use would not be the personal requirement of all the landlords. In support of this submission, he has referred us to McIntyre and another v. Hardicastle ((1948) 2 K B 82).

The relevant portion of subsection (3) of section 13 of the Ordinance is in the following words :‑

"3(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession :‑

(i) In the case of a residential building, if

(a) he requires it in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children ;

(b) he is not occupying another residential building, suitable for his needs at the time, in the sama urban area in which such building is situated ; and

(c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance in the said urban area

(d) In the case of a non‑residential building or a scheduled building or rented land, if‑

(a) he requires it in good faith for his; own use or for the use of any of his male children ;

(b) he or his said child is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the case may be, suitable for his needs at the time ; and

(c) he has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance, in the said urban area

Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this subsection before the expiry of such period :

Provided further that where the landlord had obtained possession of a residential, scheduled or non‑residential building or rented land under the provisions of sub‑paragraph Q) or sub‑paragraph (ii) he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said sub‑paragraph (iii) for the possession of any other building of the same class or rented land unless such residential, scheduled or non‑residential building or land is no longer suitable for his needs at the time."

It will be seen that it is open to the landlord to apply for the possession of the building if he requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his male children. It is correct that under section 12(2) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act the singular will include the plural, and for that reason the word 'he', wherever it occurs in clause (a), would be read as 'they' in the case of a plurality of landlords, but does it mean that in such a case the law contemplates that the requirement must be for the personal use of the entire body of landlords or the use of the male children of all the landlords taken together. It is clear that the Legislature could not have contemplated any such absurd situation. The intention of the law seems to us to be clear, namely, that a landlord is entitled to ask for possession of the property in case he bona fide requires it for his own use or for the use of any of his male children. In case there are more than one person, holding the property jointly, the requirement would be more than amply fulfilled if the property is needed by any one of them or for the use of the male children of any of them for in either case the object and the purpose is to enable the landlord, or all of them, or any of them to enjoy the use and occupation of his or their own property. It will be appreciated that since the law even recognises the requirement of the male children of the landlord as a legitimate ground for asking for possession of the property, it could not have intended to place one or more of the joint body of landlords on a lower level than the male children of the landlord. We are, therefore, of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not borne out by either the language of the low or the purpose underlying it.

As already stated, the learned counsel has referred us to the decision in Mcttntyre and another v. Hardeastle, in support of the submission made by him. As this particular judgment has been discussed and analysed at some length by Durab Patel. J., of the Sind and Baluchistan High Court in the case reported as Syed Rashid Hussain and two others v. Hussain Haji Ahmed (P L D 1973 Kar. 37), it is not necessary for us to embark on its examination afresh and it would suffice to say that we endorse the view taken by the learned Judge, and the reasons given therefore to the effect that the literal interpreta tion adopted by the Court of Appeal is not the only interpretation possible of the relevant clause occurring in our statute, and, therefore, in order to avoid absurd, arbitrary or inequitable results, it would be permissible to read the words "he" and "his" in the clause both as "they" and as "any of them" as the context may require, in cases where several persons are jointly constituted as the landlord of the property.

As a result, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for time to vacate the premises. He gives an undertaking that the vacant possession shall be delivered to the landlords before the expiry of the time allowed by the Court. In view of the undertaking given by Raja Muhammad Akram we allow the petitioner two months' time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he regularly deposits the rent due.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.