GUL MUHAMMAD vs Mst. FATIMA BIBI AND 7 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate court directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of the respondent-landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question raised was whether the failure to explicitly use the expressions 'good faith or bona fide' in the pleadings, framed issues, and the Rent Controller's order vitiated the eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court held that technicalities regarding the specific wording of the pleadings do not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction when both lower forums and the landlord were conscious of the legal requirement and the substance of the plea was duly raised. The court affirmed the refusal of the High Court to exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, granting one month's time to vacate the premises upon a voluntary undertaking. The key principle laid down is that the absence of specific formulaic terminology in pleadings does not invalidate eviction proceedings where the substance of the legal requirement for bona fide personal need has been substantially satisfied and considered by the lower authorities.
- Whether the failure to use the exact expressions good faith or bona fide in pleadings vitiates an eviction order based on personal requirement?
- Does the High Court properly refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction where concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement are recorded by lower forums?
- Whether technical flaws in pleadings justify interference by the Supreme Court when lower authorities are conscious of the legal requirements?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 11-1- 1982 of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition arising out of an order of a learned Rent Controller directing eviction of the petitioner on ground of personal requirement of the respondent --landlord which was affirmed by the appellate Court, was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel, apart from raising some factual pleas, contended that the expressions "good faith or bona fide" not having been used in the pleadings of the landlord, the issues framed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, a necessary requirement of law was ignored, therefore, regardless of the question whether the High Court should not have interfered on question of fact enough justification was made out for exercise of the judicial review. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Notwith--standing the technical point raised by him, the learned Controller as also the first appellate Court were conscious with regard to the requirement of law. Similarly, respondent-landlord did raise the plea of bona fide requirement, the technical point with regard to use of certain language does not justify interference by this Court, the refusal by the High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction was amply justified. This petition is dismissed.
3. The learned counsel prayed for time to vacate the shop in question. One month's time has been allowed on an undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner after consulting his client that he would surrender the possession to the landlord voluntarily without any further proceedings and would also pay them the monthly rent for this period. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- QAISER JAVED MALIK vs PERVAIZ HAMEED and 2 others 2009 MLD 350