AHMAD KHAN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition filed by the landlord against the appellate court's dismissal of an ejectment application was accepted. The petitioner was a tenant of a shop against whom the respondent-landlord sought ejectment on grounds of default in rent and personal requirement for reconstruction. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the appellate court set aside the order, holding the landlord's requirement not to be bona fide. The High Court reversed this view and restored the ejectment. The core legal question was whether the High Court could properly interfere in its writ jurisdiction with the findings of the first appellate court under the rent restriction law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court rightly intervened where the first appellate court's findings lacked proper justification. Additionally, a criminal miscellaneous petition for contempt of court regarding an alleged violation of a stay order was dismissed as unsubstantiated.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court passed under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
- Does the absence of ejectment proceedings against other tenants in the same building necessarily disprove the bona fide requirement of the landlord for reconstruction?
- Can a party be punished for contempt of court for violating a stay order when service or knowledge of the stay order is denied and unproven?
- Section 13(2)(vi), Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 15, Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13-6-81 whereby Writ Petition No. 10955 of 1980 was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
2. Petitioner was tenant of Shop No. 11/231 Main Bazar, Lala Musa under the respondent-landlord on payment of Rs. 200, as rent per month. Respondent brought an application for ejectment before the Rent Controller, Kharian on the ground of default in the payment of rent and personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence accepted the application and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop and deliver its possession to the landlord within one month from the date of order dated 11-12-79. Against this the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal in.
The Court of Additional District Judge Gujrat, who, vide his judgment dated 4-9-80 accepted the appeal of the petitioner, and set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller with costs. Against this :order the Bashir Ahmad landlord filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawal-- pindi Bench which was accepted vide the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel has contended that the High Court could not interfere with the judgment of the learned first appellate Court passed under section 15 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction; and that the High Court in matters which attained finality under the provisions. Of the aforesaid Ordinance could not interfere. He contended that the finding of the appellate Court holding that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide and he had not come to the Court with clean hands could not be set aside by the learned High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
4. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and asked him to support his contention by referring to the male fide or lack of good faith which has swayed the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge but he failed to do so. We have observed that in, paragraph 9 of his judgment the learned District Judge has mentioned: "But I do not find any force in this argument because so far as objection No. 1 is concerned, it has been laid down in 1980 SCMR 483 that in an application under section 13(2)(vi) ejectment claimed on the ground of reconstruction of property is the only requirement of law and production of forwarding letter of municipal authorities is not necessary" and "Absence of renewal of sanction is not fatal to claim for ejectment". and in paragraph 10 of the same judgment he was held that the respondents--1lndlords have failed to prove that they have bona fide intention for the reconstruction because Bashir Ahmad who appeared as A. W. 3 and who is one of the landlords, has admitted that the remaining two portions of the disputed property are in possession of other tenants, but they have not filed any ejectment petition against them. In view of this admission of one of the landlords it was concluded by the learned Judge that the issue of bona fide requirement for reconstruction remained unproved.
5. We feel that the impugned order of the learned Judge of the High Court is based on the observation that there was no ground for holding that the shop in question was not intended to be reconstructed. Therefore, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
6. A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 34-R of 1981 was also filed in this connection by Ahmad Khan, petitioner wherein it has been submitted that the respondents have been guilty of gross contempt of Court by entering into possession of the disputed property during the subsistence of the Stay Order passed by this Court on 18-7-81, a certified copy whereof was duly shown to them by the petitioner; and, therefore, the respondents be punished for committing contempt because a notice dated 19-9-81 has already been issued by this Court to Bashir Ahmad and others the respondents. We find that no action is called for in this petition as the petitioner has failed to show that a copy of the Stay Order dated 18-7-81 was shown to the respondents, and as per the written reply of the respondents, to the Notice dated 19-9-81 the contemners vehemently deny the allegation and filed, in support, a number of affidavits of various persons of the locality who have repelled the allegation of the petitioner that the Stay Order's copy was show to the respondents.
We, therefore, recall the Notice dated 19-9-81 and dismiss this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, as well.