P L D 1988 Supreme Court 734 (PLP)
PARVAIZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD AHSAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1988 Supreme Court 734 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S.17‑‑Owner of a commercial premises, by a family arrangement gifted 2/3rd share in the premises to her two sons and subsequently all three of them filed a joint application for eviction of tenant mainly on the ground that it was required by one of them (son) for setting up a medical clinic‑‑Contention by tenant that as the gift made by mother in favour of her sons was not approved by the Cantonment Board it was invalid‑‑Held, validity or invalidity of the gift was a matter between the landlords and the Cantonment Board and tenant being an outsider had no locus standi to call in question its validity.‑ Locus standi. p. 735 A |
| Bench Members | Muhmmrtad AfzaZ ZuZZah and |
| Parties | PARVAIZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD AHSAN and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1988 Supreme Court 734 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1988 Supreme Court 734 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S.17‑‑Owner of a commercial premises, by a family arrangement gifted 2/3rd share in the premises to her two sons and subsequently all three of them filed a joint application for eviction of tenant mainly on the ground that it was required by one of them (son) for setting up a medical clinic‑‑Contention by tenant that as the gift made by mother in favour of her sons was not approved by the Cantonment Board it was invalid‑‑Held, validity or invalidity of the gift was a matter between the landlords and the Cantonment Board and tenant being an outsider had no locus standi to call in question its validity.‑ Locus standi. p. 735 A bench comprising: Muhmmrtad AfzaZ ZuZZah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1988 Supreme Court 734 (PLP) (PARVAIZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD AHSAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch.Khalilur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 11‑5‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in F.A.0. No.21 of 1986). (a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.17‑‑Owner of a commercial premises, by a family arrangement gifted 2/3rd share in the premises to her two sons and subsequently all three of them filed a joint application for eviction of tenant mainly on the ground that it was required by one of them (son) for setting up a medical clinic‑‑Contention by tenant that as the gift made by mother in favour of her sons was not approved by the Cantonment Board it was invalid‑‑Held, validity or invalidity of the gift was a matter between the landlords and the Cantonment Board and tenant being an outsider had no locus standi to call in question its validity.‑ [Locus standi]. [p. 735] A (b) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑ ‑‑‑8.17(4) (b)‑‑Eviction application‑‑Commercial building‑‑Premises required fbr personal need was not required by all the three owners jointly but only by one of them‑‑Effect‑‑Held, one of the landlords could take advantage of S.17(4)(b) particularly, when the other co‑sharers had joined him in seeking eviction of the tenant. [p. 735] B (c) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.17(4)(b)‑‑Requirement of premises on ground of personal need of landlord‑‑Contention of tenant raising a question of fact that premises was not required bona fide by landlord for his clinic as he was an inexperienced doctor and was in Government service‑‑High Court, having appreciated the evidence led by the parties recorded a finding adverse to the tenant, which suffered from no infirmity‑ Supreme Court declined interference. [p. 736] C
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner is a tenant in a commercial premises formerly owned by Mst. Nazira, respondent No.3. respondents Nos.l and 2 are her sons. By a family arrangement she transferred 2/3rd share in the premises to her sons. Subsequently, all the three respondents filed a joint application for the eviction of the petitioner mainly on the ground that it was required by one of them namely, respondent No.l, for setting up a medical clinic. The application was dismissed by the' Rent Controller, Multan Cantonment. The respondents filed an appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the appeal and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that as the gift made by respondent No.3 in favour of respondents Nos.l and 2 was not approved by the Cantonment Board, it was invalid. It is difficult A to accept this contention for the reason that the validity or invalidity of the gift was a matter between the Cantonment Board and the respondents. The petitioner being an outsider had no locus standi to call in question its validity. It is then urged that under section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, a building of a commercial nature could be got vacated by a landlord if he required B it in good faith for his own use. In this case the premises in dispute was not required by all the three owners jointly but only by one of them; in the circumstances the ground for eviction set down by the said provision was not available to the respondents. This contention is also without any merit. By virtue of the Tamleek Nama respondent No.l too had become landlord with reference to the petitioner and we see no reason why one of the landlords cannot take advantage of the said provision particularly, when the other co‑sharers had joined him in seeking eviction of the tenant. To hold otherwise would mean that in cantonment areas where a rented premises is owned by a number of persons none of them can seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal need. We find it difficult to accept this proposition. It is then contended that the premises were not required bona fide by respondent No.l as he was an inexperienced doctor and was in Government service. This contention raises a question of fact. The i High Court has after appreciating the evidence led by the parties recorded a finding adverse to the petitioner. We are not persuaded that this finding suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. 11.B.A./P‑57/S Petition dismissed. THE END