1991 PLP 2008 (SCMR)
Syed ASMATULLAH — Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2008 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | Syed ASMATULLAH — Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH KHAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2008 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2008 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2008 (SCMR) (Syed ASMATULLAH — Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH KHAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- W.N. Kohli, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Quadri, Advocate-on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1991.
- W.N. Kohli, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 1-7-1990 of the High Court of Balochistan, in FA.O. No.113 of 1990).
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Ejectment of tenant-- Bona fide .personal requirement of one of the landlords
Ejectment of tenant was ordered by Rent Controller on ground of bona fide requirement of landlord and such finding was upheld by High Court in appeal
Originally father of present landlords was the owner of property and he had leased it out to tenant-- After original owner's death present landlords as his heirs became owners of property and a fresh lease deed was executed by one of the landlords in favour of tenant
Tenant's plea that there was private settlement between legal heirs according to which the premises in question fell to the share of the landlord who had executed lease deed in his favour; that other co-owners could not bring ejectment application and; premises being exclusively owned by one landlord, same could not be got vacated for the need of any other co-owner/landlord
No evidence was led to prove private settlement and exclusive ownership of the landlord who had executed lease deed
All the co-heirs/landlords were co- owners of property and they had not admitted private settlement
All the landlords being joint owners, application for personal requirement for one of the landlords was maintainable
There being concurrent finding on question of bona fide personal requirement, and no misreading having been pointed out, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment dated 1‑7‑1990 of the High Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that an eviction application from the shop in question was filed by the respondents against the petitioner on 16‑7‑1986 on the ground of default and personal requirement of Nasrullah Khan. The application was contested and written statement was filed on.13‑9‑1986. Three issues were framed by the Rent Controller in respect of notice under section 13‑A, default and personal requirement. The Rent Controller by means of order dated 30‑11‑1989 accepted the eviction application and decided the issue of personal requirement in favour of the respondents. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lease‑deed was executed on 16‑2‑1984 between the petitioner and respondent No.l as such their exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.l. The eviction could not be sought for the requirement of respondent No.2.
4. The admitted feature of the case is that Gul Muhammad, father of respondents Nos.l and 2 and husband of respondent No.3 was landlord of the disputed shop. He leased out the shop to the petitioner on 20‑9‑1979 and a lease agreement was executed. He expired in 1983. Thereafter a fresh lease deed was executed on 16‑2‑1984 between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a private settlement between the legal heirs of the deceased Gul Muhammad and the shop in question fell to the share of the respondent No.l. As such, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 could not file eviction application against the petitioner and under the law the shop could not be got vacated for the personal requirement of respondent No.2 who is brother of respondent No.l. This contention has no force. There is no proof of private settlement. No evidence was led to show that the respondent No.l became the exclusive owner of the shop in question. All the three respondents are co -owners of the shop. They have not admitted any private settlement. The respondent No.l was collecting the rent on behalf of the owners. The other co- owners are not supporting the case of the petitioner. As respondent No.2 is joint owner of the shop, therefore, application for his personal requirement was maintainable. There are concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts with regard to the bona fide requirement of the respondent. There is no misreading of evidence.
5. This petition has no force. The same is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./A‑867/S Leave refused.