P L D 1965 W (PLP)
ALI GOHAR‑Petitioner Versus YAQOOB AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI GOHAR‑Petitioner Versus YAQOOB AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Landlord and tenant |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Landlord and tenant as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (ALI GOHAR‑Petitioner Versus YAQOOB AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Bahadur Khan for Petitioner.
- Asadul Haq for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Ejectment‑Several co‑sharer‑landlords must have knowledge and should assent to ejectment though they may be impleaded as plaintiffs or pro forma defendants‑Decree for ejectment in favour of one of several landlords has nothing to do with ownership or other rights of co‑sharers and mortgagees if any.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Bahadur Khan for Petitioner. Asadul Haq for Respondents. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 5th of August 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, whereby the revision preferred by the respondents Nos. 1 to 8. was accepted. The facts of the case are that the petitioner brought a suit for ejectment and payment of arrears of rent against respondents Nos. 1 to
8. Respondents Nos. 9 to 15 being co‑owners were also impleaded as pro forma defendants. The Assistant Collector passed a decree for ejectment but the claim of the plaintiffs for rent was dismissed as they refused to get payment which had been deposited in the treasury. The respondents went to appeal to the Collector but it was dismissed. They then went in revision to the Additional Commissioner who accepted it. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question for determination is, whether ejectment of a tenant can take place at the instance of one of the co‑sharers. The essence of all the legal decisions is to the effect that no tenant should be ejected without the knowledge of all the co‑sharers. They have to act jointly but this joint action can take the form of either joining as plaintiffs or by giving assent and raising no objections in the capacity of pro forma defendants. It may not be practical, and, in some cases, it may be impossible, to ensures that all the co‑sharers joint as plaintiffs. In this case, the plaintiffs impleaded the co‑sharers as well as the mortgagees as pro forma defendants. They raised no objections and it is, therefore, obvious that the ejectment of the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 has the concurrence of all the co‑sharers as well as the mortgagees. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order of ejectment. The learned counsel for the respondents has also raised the question that the decree for ejectment will be only in favour of the petitioner and not in favour of other pro forma defendants. A decree is only for ejectment of respondents Nos. 1 to
8. It has nothing to do with the ownership or other rights of the co‑sharers and the mortgagees. Having all these factors into consideration, I accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that the orders for ejectment given by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the learned Collector shall be implemented. A. H. Petition accepted.