Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4 of 1986, heard on 1st June 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 13‑B. & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Ejectment‑ Personal bona fide need on ground of retirement‑‑Ejectment of tenant was sought by landlord on sole ground of personal bona fide need due to his retirement‑‑Heirs of such landlord after his death deciding to confine themselves to same ground of ejectment‑‑ Appeal filed by tenant against order of Rent Controller striking off defence of tenant for non‑compliance of tentative rent order having been decided against landlord, heirs of such landlord in constitutional petition prayed to High Court that direction be issued to Rent Controller to decide case on sole ground of personal bona fide need only‑‑There being no objection to such prayer on part of tenant, High Court accepting prayer, remanded matter to Rent Controller for deciding question of bona fide personal need as provided by S. 13(B) of Ordinance VI of 1959 in circumstances.

Shamim Zafar for Petitioner.

Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 24th, 27th May and 1st June, 1986.

The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that late Ch. Muhammad Jalil Khan filed an eviction application against Aziz Fazal, Managing Director, Morning Star Education Society, Lahore under section 13‑B, subsection (5) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. He stated that he was a Government servant and was due to retire on 25‑12‑1983 on attaining the age of super annuation and after his retirement, he wanted to settle in Lahore. Excepting the property in dispute he had no other residential property to live in at Lahore or anywhere else. Morning Star Education Society etc. contested the petition. During the pendency of the said petition Ch. Muhammad Jalil Khan died where after, his widow and other legal representative were brought on record. On 12‑11‑1983 the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 directing the Morning Star Education Society etc. ‑ to deposit the rent before 15th of each month and framed the

(1) Whether the petition is premature.

(2) Whether the petition .is not maintainable in view of Preliminary Objection No.1

(3) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute bona fide and in good faith for personal use and occupation

Thereafter, an objection was raised by the respondents‑tenants that since the premises in dispute was a non‑residential building, therefore, the order under section 13(6) could not be passed without first resolving the said point. After hearing the parties the learned Rent Controller decided the said point (Issue No.2) in favour of the petitioners‑landlord and directed the respondents‑tenant to comply with the order under section 13(6) passed on 12‑11‑1983. The respondents submitted an application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent for the months of December 1983 and January 1984. The learned Rent Controller did not grant the said application and vide order; dated 2‑6‑1984 struck off their defence and ordered their eviction.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 12‑11‑1983 requiring the respondents to deposit the monthly rent and by the order, dated 2‑6‑1984 by which their defence was struck off they filed an appeal. Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, Additional District Judge, Lahore by his judgment, dated 30‑9‑1985 accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller to proceed further in accordance with law from the stage of passing a fresh order under section 13(6) and to re‑frame the issues according to the pleadings of the parties except the issue of jurisdiction and to decide the case in accordance with law after allowing opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned appellate Court the petitioners‑landlord have filed this constitutional petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question of jurisdiction stands resolved and since the main ground on which the, ejectment" was sought was the retirement of the predecessor‑in‑interest; of the petitioner, namely, Ch. Muhammad Jalil Khan, therefore, they would not seek ejectment on other grounds but would confine only to their bona fide personal need of the premises in question. He requests that a direction be issued to the learned Rent Controller to decide the ejectment application on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the petitioners as provided by section 13(b) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Learned counsel for the respondent hall no objection to the grant of this prayer of the petitioners.

4. Accordingly. I accept the prayer and remand the matter to the learned Rent Controller for deciding the question of bona fide personal need of the petitioner as provided by section 13(b) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as amended in 1979. The learned Rent Controller shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

The parties are directed to appear before Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Malik, learned Rent Controller, Lahore on 7‑6‑1986.

No orders as to the costs.

H.B.T. Petition accepted /Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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