2017 PLP 450 (CLC)
Mst. RUKHSANA SAJJAD — Appellant Versus Syed MUHAMMAD AREEB — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 450 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. RUKHSANA SAJJAD — Appellant Versus Syed MUHAMMAD AREEB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 450 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 450 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 450 (CLC) (Mst. RUKHSANA SAJJAD — Appellant Versus Syed MUHAMMAD AREEB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 13 & 2 (i)
Effect
Ejectment petition was allowed against which appeal was filed
Tenant died during pendency of appeal and his wife filed application for impleadment being sole legal heir but same was dismissed
Appellate Court found that appeal had abated
Widow, after the death of her husband, had become tenant
Findings of Appellate Court that appeal had abated were against law
Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside
Case was remanded by the High Court to the lower Appellate court with the direction to implead widow as appellant and then decide the appeal
Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Through this appeal order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur has been called in question.
2. Brief facts of the case arc that respondent filed an ejectment petition with regard to the non-residential building against the husband of the petitioner namely Sajjad Anwar on 1.10.2005 under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The ejectment petition was accepted vide order dated 12.12.2007. Sajjad Anwar filed an appeal which was pending before the lower appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal Sajjad Anwar died. After his death on 25.1.2010 his widow Mst.Rukhsana Sajjad filed an application for permission to be impleaded as sole appellant as her husband has died. It is stated in the application that there is no other legal heir of the deceased except the applicant as deceased was issueless. The application was contested and the learned first appellate court vide order dated 16.2.2010 dismissed the application and found that the appeal has abated, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the light of section 2(i) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the case law reported as Majid Hussain and 5 others v. Muhammad Rafique and another (1980 CLC 154) and Fazal Ahmed v. Ramzan Bibi (1984 CLC 2196) the order passed by the First appellate court is absolutely against the law and be set-aside and the appeal be accepted.
4. On the other hand, respondent has supported the impugned order and relies upon the case law titled Shafique Ahmad and others v. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Civil Judge and others (1988 SCMR 1656) and M.Amjad Bhutta and Co and others v. Malik Abdul Majid Tiwana District Judge, Sialkot and others (PLD 1990 Lahore 412).
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent and have perused the order with their able assistance.
6. The case law relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is helpful for determination of question in issue before this court. I am of the considered view that the widow after the death of her husband the original tenant came under the definition as given in Subsection (i) of Section 2 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 findings of first appellate court that appeal has abated are against the law. In the light of what has been discussed above, the impugned order passed by the first appellate court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first appellate court and the appeal before the first appellate court will be deemed to be pending and it will be decided after impleading Mst. Rukhsana Sajjad as appellant on merits. ZC/R-22/L Case remanded.