Khawaja MUHAMMAD RAZZAK vs Dr. SULTAN MEHMOOD GHOURI and another
This petition challenged an order of the Sindh High Court which, while dismissing a tenant's constitutional petition against an eviction order, granted the tenant an eighteen-month period to vacate the demised premises. The petitioner-landlord contended that this duration was excessive and granted without his knowledge. The Supreme Court examined the reasonableness of the time granted for eviction. The Court held that while the High Court correctly dismissed the constitutional petition, the grant of an eighteen-month period for vacating the premises was legally unwarranted and unreasonable. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order regarding the time frame and substituted it with a period of 120 days from the date of the High Court's order. The key principle laid down is that while courts have discretion to grant time for vacating premises in eviction matters, such discretion must be exercised reasonably and not in a manner that causes undue hardship to the landlord or lacks legal justification, particularly when the duration granted is excessively long.
- Is an eighteen-month period for vacating demised premises considered reasonable in an eviction matter?
- Does the High Court have the authority to grant an excessively long period for vacating premises in a constitutional petition?
- Can the Supreme Court modify the time frame granted by the High Court for vacating premises if the original duration is found to be unreasonable?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This petition is directed against a part of the Sindh High Court order allowing 18 months period to the respondent for vacating the demised premises. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No,1 in person.
2. After long drawn litigation leading to an order of eviction against the respondent, his constitutional petition was dismissed by the Sindh High Court vide order, dated 17-10-2006 whereby, while upholding the concurrent findings of the forums below, he has been allowed a period of one year and six months for vacating the demised premises, subject to payment of rent.
Evidently, this order was passed behind the back of the petitioner-landlord, who is aggrieved and prays that only reasonable time may be allowed to the respondent-tenant for vacating the premises. On his part, the respondent states that he has been enjoying the possession of the premises for the last 25 years upon payment of Rs,1,00,000 as "Pagree" and Rs,350 as monthly rent.
3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. While the High Court may be justified in dismissing the constitutional petition of the respondent, there was no lawful warrant for allowing usually long period of eighteen months for vacating the premises, which on the face of record, is most unreasonable and unlawful. In order to maintain a balance between the parties, we would set aside the order of the High Court to the extent of allowing eighteen months time for vacating the premises and substitute it by awarding 120 days from the date of the order of the High Court.
4. Consequently, petition, is converted into appeal and on acceptance disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Cited by 7 cases
- MAKHDOOM HUSSAM-UL-HAQ vs Syed GHULAM MOHIUDDIN and 2 others 2019 CLC 1063
- Messrs TANVEER SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Executive Director Finance vs TARIQ SAEED through Shahzad Akber and 2 others 2017 YLR 1762
- M/s Tanveer Spinning & Weaving Mills vs Tariq Saeed etc. 2017 PLJ Lahore 655, 2017 YLR 1762, 2017 LHC 992
- M/s. TANVEER SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS vs TARIQ SAEED etc 2017 PLJ Lahore 655
- M/s. Tanveer Spinning & Weaving Mills vs Tariq Saeed, etc 2017 [M] C.L.R. 510
- Malak ZAHOOR-UL-HAQ through Special Attorney vs IIND ADDITIONAL 2015 CLC 468
- Mst. MUMTAZ BANO and 6 others vs ABBAS HASSAN and 3 others 2009 MLD 823