Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 530‑R of 1983, decided on 5th February, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed on 18‑7‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 278/1983).

‑‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) w 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S..3‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal need of landlord ‑Petitioner‑tenant's writ petition against ejectment dismissed by High Court upholding orders of Rent Controller and appellate Court‑‑Landlady dying after conclusion of proceedings‑‑Conclusion by High Court on fresh writ petition of tenant that right to re‑possess landlady's property having come to vest in her lifetime, would pass on to her heirs on her demise‑‑Meld, unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 5th February, 1984.

.‑‑ The respondent Fehmeeda Khanum sued for the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop situate on the Mall, Rawalpindi, on the ground that she required it for her own personal use.

By an order dated the 1st of October, 1982, the Rent Controller allowed her prayer which was upheld in appeal. The petitioner, there upon, challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1983, which was dismissed in limine.

Fehmeeda Khanum expired on the 7th of June, 1983. Accordingly, the petitioner applied to the High Court for review of the order on the ground that as the eviction was ordered for her personal need which no longer existed as she had died, therefore, the order of eviction should be declared as null arid void. The High Court dismissed the review petition by its order, dated the 3rd of July, 1983, holding that as Fehmeeda Khanum died on the 7th of June, 1983, after the dismissal of the writ petition there was no ground to review the order. However, an observation was made that if the petitioner so chooses he could file a fresh petition to seek his remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a fresh petition in the High Court which was also dismissed in limine on the 18th of July, 1983. Therein the same plea was taken that with the demise of Fehmeeda Khanum her cause of action had also died with her as the need was for her own personal benefit.

The High Court while distinguishing the cases cited on the ground I that the landlord had died during the pendency of the proceedings held that no such feature was available in the instant case as the proceedings had finally come to a conclusion during her lifetime. Therefore, the right to re‑possess her property having come to vest in her lifetime, will pass on to her heirs on her demise. This conclusion in our view is unexceptionable as such a plea could not be taken after the proceedings had finally concluded.

In this view of the matter, the petition has no force and is dismissed.

S. Q. 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.