Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 1374 of 1983, decided on 29th July, 1986.
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑12‑1983 in W.P. No. 3226 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal need and re‑construction‑‑Denial of title of landlord by tenant‑‑Application rejected by Rent Controller on ground that relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved‑‑Appellate Court holding that said relationship was established and as respondent‑tenant had denied the very title of appellant to suit property and also denied existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, tenancy automatically terminated and respondent was liable to ejectment‑‑ Order challenged in writ jurisdiction which was dismissed‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider plea that without statutory grounds for eviction having been established either direct or by necessary implication mere forfeiture on such denial cannot automatically result in an eviction order‑‑After preliminary issues had been resolved, as there was no question of default involved, it was necessary that statutory grounds should have been made out.
Mst. Sughran and others v. Ehsanul Haq Bhalli 1982 S C M R 1164 ref .‑ .
Makhan Bano v. Haji Abdul Ghani P L D 1984 S C 17 and Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani P L D 1985 S C 1 rel.
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Order of Appellate Court holding that said relationship was established, impugned in writ jurisdiction‑‑Held: Finding with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties was one of fact and all material factors having been taken into account, including plea of petitioners themselves, it was not open to challenge in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal to agitate that question refused.
Mst. Sughran and others v. Ehsanul Haq Bhalli 1982 S C M R 1164 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th July, 1986.
The petitioners, in occupation of a shop, feel aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑12‑1983 whereby their Constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order was dismissed.
The respondent No.1 claiming to be the landlord of the premises in occupation of the petitioners sought their eviction on the ground of personal need and their having damaged the property to an extent that it required reconstruction for which the sanction had been obtained. The application vas contested on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed. Two issues were framed which appeared to be preliminary, one with regard to the maintainability of the petition and the other with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller held that the application of landlord and tenant was not proved. The ejectment application was dismissed. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established and then proceeded to record the following finding:‑
"The appellant claimed the ejectment of the respondents, on the three grounds. Out of it, one is his need for reconstruction of the building. In this behalf, he produced the sanctioned site plan Exh.A.W.4/1. It has remained un-rebutted. As, the respondents denied the very title of the appellant to the suit property and also denied the existence of their relationship of landlord and tenant, the tenancy automatically terminated and the respondents liable to ejectment".
Against the order of ejectment, a constitutional petition was filed and both the grounds were raised, namely, that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist and the statutory ground necessary for getting them evicted was not at all either in issue or made out. Relying on a decision of this Court in Mst. Sughran and others v. Ehsanul Haq Bhalli 1982 S C M R 1164 the constitutional petition was dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the other decisions on the subject, viz. Makhan Bano v. Haji Abdul Ghani P L D 1984 S C 17 and Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani P L D 1985 S C 1 to substantiate his contention that without the statutory grounds for eviction having been established either direct or by necessary implication mere forfeiture on such denial cannot automatically result in an eviction order. He has also drawn our attention to the material on which the finding with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was reversed by the District Judge contending that such a finding was not tenable.
So far as the finding with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned. as it is one of fact and all the material factors have been taken into account including the plea of the petitioners themselves, we consider it not open to challenge in Constitution jurisdiction. Hence leave to appeal to agitate that question is refused.
As regards the other grounds there appears to be substance in the contention that after the preliminary issues had been resolved, as there was no question of default involved in the case, it was necessary that the statutory grounds should have been made out. The one of reconstruction which has been taken note of by the appellate Authority was not really then in issue as the parties were contesting it till then on the ground of maintainability of the petition, and the existence of such a relationship. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,500.
M.I. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer