2011 PLP 846 (CLC)
MUNEER KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus UZMA UFAQ and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 846 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNEER KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus UZMA UFAQ and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 846 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 846 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 846 (CLC) (MUNEER KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus UZMA UFAQ and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Musharraf Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(g)(j), 17 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Ejectment of tenant on ground of personal bona fide requirement of landlord
Relationship of landlord and tenant
Both courts below had concurrently accepted ejectment application of landlords and passed ejectment order against the tenants, who had moved constitutional petition against concurrent judgments of the courts below
Tenants had assailed judgments of courts below on the ground that ownership of the property was controverted as the Capital Development Authority had claimed to be the owner and had cancelled the property from the names of the tenants
Tenancy agreement between the parties was not extended after its expiry--Ejectment application was filed by the landlords, who were wife and sister-in-law of one to whom the tenants had been paying rent of the premises
Ejectment application, in circumstances, was maintainable
Dispute between the landlord and Capital Development Authority had .got no relevancy; at the most, it could be a dispute between landlord and Capital Development Authority
Once a tenant was always a tenant and no contradictory stand could be taken at the same time
Personal bona fide requirement of landlords had not been rebutted through cross-examination and landlords had got every right to get the premises vacated for personal bona fide use
Concurrent findings of courts below needed no interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.
This Writ Petition challenges the judgments dated 26-1-2010 and 8-7-2010 passed by learned Rent Controller as well as learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, respectively, whereby ejectment petition of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 was accepted and ejectment order was upheld by the learned Appellate Court.
2. The petitioners assail the Judgments on the ground that ownership of the property is controversial as the C.D.A. claims to be the owner and has already cancelled the property from the names of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Both the courts below after perusal of evidence and on the basis of available record, accepted the eviction application and passed the ejectment order.
4. Admittedly, there exists a tenancy agreement between the parties, which was not extended after its expiry.
5. The petitioners in their written statement before the learned trial Court submitted that respondent No.1 (Haji Muhammad Zahoor) had been regularly paying the rent to Dr. Zubair Azeem Butt, which means that relationship of landlord and tenant has not been specifically denied.
6. The ejectment petition was filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 who are wife and sister-in-law of Dr. Zubair Azeem Butt, therefore, the eviction petition was maintainable.
7. So far as dispute between the landlord and C.D.A. is concerned, that has got no relevancy over here as at the most, it can be dispute between a landlord and C.D.A. According to written statement of C.D.A. in inter pleader, suit regarding the said shop, status of present petitioners has been questioned by stating that they got no cause of action or locus standi to file the petition. Even otherwise the disputed question of facts and evidence cannot be looked into under the writ jurisdiction of Article 199 of the Constitution.
8. It is an admitted position of law that once a tenant is always a tenant and no contradictory stand can be taken at the same time.
9. Personal bona fide requirements of the respondents Nos.1 and 2/landlord has not been rebutted through cross-examination and landlords have got every right to get the premises vacated for personal bona fide use.
10. The learned courts below have dilated upon the issues. There are concurrent findings which need no interference in the writ jurisdiction. As such, petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./11/Isl. Petition dismissed.