Haji ALLAH RAKHA vs ABDUL SATTAR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from an ejectment order passed against a tenant who, during the pendency of appeal proceedings, acquired a half-share ownership interest in the suit property. The core legal question is whether a tenant who becomes a co-sharer of the property during the pendency of ejectment proceedings is entitled to retain possession of the joint property until a formal partition occurs, or whether they remain liable for ejectment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this issue, noting that the petitioner's status had fundamentally changed from a tenant to a co-owner. The Court highlighted that the petitioner expressed willingness to seek partition of the property. The key principle being examined is the legal effect of a change in status from tenant to co-sharer on pending ejectment proceedings, specifically whether such a transformation precludes the landlord from obtaining an ejectment order against the new co-owner, thereby necessitating a partition suit rather than summary eviction proceedings.
- Can a tenant who purchases a share of the suit property during the pendency of an appeal against an ejectment order be ejected from the property?
- Is a co-sharer entitled to retain possession of joint property until a formal partition is effected?
- Does the acquisition of a share in the suit property by a tenant fundamentally alter the nature of the ejectment proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioner-defendant initially was a tenant in the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord, however, during the pendency of the appeal he purchased half of the suit property and thereby became a co-sharer. The grievance being made is that despite the afore-referred development and the law laid down by this Court in the judgments reported as MST. SANOBAR SULTAN AND OTHERS v. OBAIDULLAH KHAN (PLD 2009 SC 71). And ABDUL ZAHIR v. JAFFAR KHAN (2010 SCM R 189), he has concurrently been ejected which is not tenable in law.
2. ' When confronted with the query as to whether the petitioner is prepared to have the suit property partitioned, he readily agreed and suggested that let the respondent be summoned and this matter could be resolved even on the next date of hearing. heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, leave is granted inter alia to consider whether having purchased half share of the suit property was the petitioner-defendant not entitled to retain the possession of the joint property till partition and could be ejected in the proceedings culminating in the impugned judgment. As it is a rent matter and only a short question of law is involved, office is directed to fix the main appeal in the last week of next month. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.