1989SCMR595 (PLP)
Messrs DELITE HOUSE LTD. — Petitioner Versus FAYYAZ AKBAR — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR595 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saad Saood Jan, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs DELITE HOUSE LTD. — Petitioner Versus FAYYAZ AKBAR — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR595 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR595 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saad Saood Jan, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR595 (PLP) (Messrs DELITE HOUSE LTD. — Petitioner Versus FAYYAZ AKBAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mumtaz Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1988.
- Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- 4. Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at one stage the Rent Controller had consigned to the record the proceedings pending before him. Having done so, he could not have reviewed his order and proceeded to decide it. With its consignment the matter stood disposed of and the Rent Controller became functus officio. Additionally, it has been contended that the sanction period of the plan, which was one year, has already expired and unless its renewal is obtained, the application could not proceed. By reference to previous such applications, and the results thereof it has been contended that the entire proceedings initiated by the landlord were mala fide.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 5-4-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in F.A.O. No.14 of 1988). '
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Ejectment of tenant on ground of reconstruction of house--Rent Controller's order for eviction of tenant upheld by High Court--Consigning of record at one stage by Rent Controller and revival of proceedings later on which amounted to review of his earlier order for which he was not competent; expiry of sanction for re-construction and plea of mala fides were the grounds on which leave was sought--Held: Consignment of record was temporary up to a specified time and revival of proceedings was pursuant to order of consignment itself and not in derogation of it--When application for ejectment was instituted, sanction for reconstruction was effective--Where proceedings got prolonged and sanction expired, merits of application remained unaffected--Plea of mala fides being one of facts and both the Courts below having examined the same on merits found none, no case, held, was made out for interference--Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑‑The Petitioner, a tenant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 5‑4‑1988 whereby a first Appeal filed by him against an Order of ejectment passed by the Cantonment Rent Controller was dismissed.
2. The sole ground on which the eviction of the petitioner was sought was reconstruction of the front portion of the main building for which plans had been got sanctioned. The Controller allowed the application holding as hereunder:‑ "Based on the evidence it is established that the petitioner wants to reconstruct and develop the suit property for which he had got sufficient funds. The earlier ejectment petitions filed on different grounds do not have significant bearing on this application. The plea of reconstruction by he petitioner has also been admitted by the respondent and further proves his bona fides." ,
3. The High Court by the impugned order upheld the ejectment concluding on merits as hereunder:‑‑ "There is no reason to doubt the statement of the landlord made on oath. From his testimony it manifestly appears that he has unequivocally made up his mind to go ahead with his plans of reconstruction. Nothing has been brought on record to discredit his intentions. He has also the capacity to muster wherewithal required for reconstruction of the building. His intention therefore, is clearly grounded in good faith and has also the full element of reasonableness, in it. In respect of three shops, he has already succeeded to get ejectment orders on this very ground. In regard to the present shop, different result cannot follow."
4. Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at one stage the Rent Controller had consigned to the record the proceedings pending before him. Having done so, he could not have reviewed his order and proceeded to decide it. With its consignment the matter stood disposed of and the Rent Controller became functus officio. Additionally, it has been contended that the sanction period of the plan, which was one year, has already expired and unless its renewal is obtained, the application could not proceed. By reference to previous such applications, and the results thereof it has been contended that the entire proceedings initiated by the landlord were mala fide.
5. The events leading to and the order of consignment passed on 7‑11‑851 clearly shows that the consignment was temporary, up to a specified time. It was, pursuant to the order of consignment itself and not m derogation of it that the proceedings were revived, continued and concluded.
6. It is not denied that when the application for ejectment was instituted the sanction for reconstruction was effective and good. If the proceedings got prolonged and the sanction expired, the merits of the application remain un-effected.
7. As regards plea of mala rides it is one of fact. Rent Controller and the High Court both have examined the merits of it and found none. We do not find anything wrong in it. Leave to appeal is refused. AA./D‑34/S Leave to appeal refused.