P L D 1970 Dacca 667 (PLP)
Haji HABIB ULLAH‑Defendant‑Appellant Versus Haji ABDUL HALIM (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1970 Dacca 667 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abu Md. Abdulla, J |
| Parties | Haji HABIB ULLAH‑Defendant‑Appellant Versus Haji ABDUL HALIM (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1970 Dacca 667 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1970 Dacca 667 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abu Md. Abdulla, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1970 Dacca 667 (PLP) (Haji HABIB ULLAH‑Defendant‑Appellant Versus Haji ABDUL HALIM (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anil Chandra Sarkar for Appellant. S. Ishtiaq Ahmed for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
East Bengal Premises Rent Control Ordinance (XXII of 19,51) S. 18‑Ejectment Protection to tenant against eviction trot available when premises required by landlord for own use and occupation‑Findings of lower appellate Court as to requirement of landlord for own use and occupation, being finding of fact, not interfered with in second appeal‑Civil Procedure Code (Y of 1908), S. 100.
Judgment & Decree
In this second appeal the original plaintiff died. An application for substitution of his heirs was filed but beyond time and C. R. No. 570(S) of 1968 was issued and the delay in filing the application for substitution condoned. There is an application for amendment of the petition for substitution filed on the 5th June 1968. The application is allowed. The rule. is made absolute and the heirs of the deceased plaintiff are brought on record. The rule for addition of parties viz. C. R. No. 571(S) of 1968 is discharged. Though the appeal is not yet ready it is taken up for hearing at the request of the learned Advocate of both parties. This second appeal is by the defendant. The plaintiff had brought a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the grounds that he is a defaulter and that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. The defence was that as the case was one in which the rent was being deposited before the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Ordinance, defendant was not a defaulter. With regard to the second ground the defence taken was that as the landlord has other premises in which he could extend his business the requirement of the landlord for the suit premises was not bona fide. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the tenant was a defaulter and rejected the ground of the landlord that the premises was required bona fide by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The tenant appealed and the landlord filed a cross‑objection. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the tenant and allowed the cross‑objection of the landlord. Hence this second appeal. Without going into question whether the tenant, is a defaulter or not it is sufficient that the landlord can show that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation. I have held in several cases that the Rent Control Ordinance has been enacted to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant owing to the acute scarcity of accommodation. According to the provision of this Ordinance the tenant is protected from eviction under certain conditions. That is to say, that the landlord will not be able to exercise his will of evicting the tenant provided prescribed conditions are fulfilled by the tenant. But the Legis lature recognised that if the landlord requires his premises for his own use and occupation the protection from eviction given to the tenant would not be available. As a final Court of fact the Court of appeal below has found that the landlord requires the suit if premises for his own use and occupation. Moreover, section 18(4) gives an opportunity to the tenant to re‑enter the premises or obtain damages if the landlord fails to fulfil the purpose for which eviction was sought. In this circumstance, in my opinion, the decree passed by the appellate Court is sound and there is no case for modifying the same. The appeal is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.