1989 PLP 829 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 829 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Shari f , J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 829 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 829 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Shari f , J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 829 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑S 13‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑Joint property had been privately partitioned, southern portion of same falling to the lot of landlord, while co‑owner to whom northern portion was assigned because of partition, sold the same and a portion thereof was purchased by tenant‑‑Such tenant's claim as co‑owner and not that of tenant, was repelled‑‑Tenant's status would not change by purchasing portion of property which had been privately partitioned‑‑Such tenant having not purchased that portion which fell to the lot of landlord by private partition and about which he had executed a rent note, could not be deemed a co‑sharer and thus would be liable to be ejected there from. Khairud Din and others v . Settlement Commissioner and others 1988 SCMR 988 and Government of Pakistan and another v. Furqan Ahmad Qureshi 1988 SCMR 623 ref. Muhammad Mehmood Bhatti for Petitioner. Muhammad Jaffer Hashmi for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Joint property‑‑.Ejectment against a co‑owner could not be ordered unless such property was partitioned. Muhammad Saddiq Mazhari v. Zahoor Ahmad 1984 C L C 3076; Khalique Ahmad v. Abdul Ghani and another P L D 1973 SC 214 and Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others v. Sh. Abdul Latif and another 1971 SCMR 198 ref. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
Judgment & Decree
13‑5‑1966. Muhammad Aslam sold the northern portion, which he had already purchased from its owners, in favour of Abdul Sattar and Abdul Ghafoor by means of Mutation No.606 attested on 31‑7‑1972. Abdul Sattar sold one‑fourth share in favour of Malik Ghulam Haider, the respondent, by means of a registered sale‑deed dated 13‑9‑1981.
2. Muhammad Ashraf had let a room on the upper storey on rent to Malik Ghulam Haider respondent by means of a rent deed dated 8‑11‑1980 Annexure 'D'. Ghulam Haider did not pay rent to Muhammad Ashraf and he lodged an ejectment petition under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground of non‑payment of rent etc. Ghulam Haider, the respondent, denied.his relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and contended that he was a co‑sharer of the joint shop and was not liable to be ejected. The learned Rent Controller formulated the following issues:‑ (1) Whether the application is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No. 1. 0 . P. R . ' (2) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties? OPP (3) Relief.
3. The learned Rent Controller found that a private partition had already taken place and the respondent was occupying the room in dispute as a tenant of Muhammad Ashraf and he ordered the ejectment of Malik Ghulam Haider from the room in dispute on 9‑7‑1984.
4. Malik Ghulam Haider, the respondent, lodged an appeal and the ejectment order was set aside. Muhammad Ashraf, the petitioner, was constrained to file this constitutional petition against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. dated 13‑10‑1984
5. Firstly, it has been argued that Muhammad Ashraf could hot bring this petition without joining the other co‑owners. This point has been discussed in Muhammad Siddiq Mazhari v. Zahoor Ahmad 1984 CIC 3076 and Khalique Ahmad v. Abdul Ghani and another I'Ll) 1973 SC 214 in which it has been held that the ejectment application by one of the co‑owners was competent. With reference to Muhammad Nawaz and 2 othors v. Sh. Abdul Latif and another 1971 SCMh 198 it has been contended that the respondent had become a co‑sharer of the joint property after purchasing from Sattar and. Therefore he could not be ejected from the premises in dispute.
6. The proposition of law in this regard is very clear. , If it is found that the shop in dispute is a pint property of all the co‑owners then Malik Ghulam Haider had become a co‑owner and had ceased to be a tenant and his ejectment could not be ordered unless the property was partitioned.
7. It has been represented with reference to Khair ud Din and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1988 SCMR 988 that the disputed question of fact could not be determined in a constitution jurisdiction of a Court which is summary in its character. Government of Pakistan and another v. Furqan Ahmad Qureshi 1988 SCMR 623 has been referred to, in which it was held that the High Court could not sit in appeal over the decision of statutory authorities and substitute their decisions with its own.
8. It may be pointed out that the learned Rent Controller has held that a private partition of the shop had taken place between the heirs of Shah Muhammad and the northern portion Was obtained by four sister‑ of Muhammad Ashraf and the southern portion of the shop for to the chart of Muhammad .4shraf arid his two sisters. The' learned District Judge, in the impugned judgment, has not disturbed these findings and has observed that it is an admitted position between' the parties that :here is private partition of the property. He, however. way of the view that no regular partition had taken place. The leari76 9. In the circumstances the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, has committed illegality in observing that, in the absence of regular partition, the respondent was a co‑owner of the shop therefore, accept this constitutional petition and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, and restore that. of the learned Rent Controller. The respondent is, however, ordered to get vacated the room in dispute within a fortnight of this order. I make no order as to eos~!~.; A,A./M‑1137/L Petition accepted.