MUHAMMAD UMAR AND Another vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent dispute where the landlord sought the ejectment of the sub-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the leased premises constituted a 'mill' and thus fell outside the scope of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the tenant's Second Appeal against Order (S.A.O.). The core legal question was whether the leased property constituted an industrial concern (a mill) or an open site, which would determine the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that since the lease deed explicitly leased out only an open plot of land and required the tenant to remove any superstructure upon the expiry of the lease, the leased premises remained an open site. Consequently, the Rent Controller possessed jurisdiction, and the petition was dismissed.
- Whether a lease of an open plot of land for the purpose of installing an industrial concern constitutes the lease of an industrial concern or an open site for jurisdictional purposes?
- Does the requirement in a lease deed to remove any superstructure upon the expiry of the lease term indicate that the leased premises is an open site?
- Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction over an ejectment petition where the subject matter of the lease is an open plot of land?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioners seek leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-9-1979, dismissing their S. A. O. In a rent matter.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Bashir Ahmad respondent bad leased out a plot of land to Ch. Muhammad Bashir respondent No. 2 and Habibur Rahman, respondent No. 3, on 11-12-1958 through a registered Lease Deed for a period of 15 years for installing an `oil mill' thereon. The leased period expired in 1973. In the meanwhile the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had sublet the premises to Muhammad Umar (petitioner herein). The landlord filed an ejectment petition on 2-1-1975 on the ground of default in payment of rent The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition vide his, order, dated. 10-7-1976 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, because according to him the premises being a `mill' the matter did not fall within the ambit of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The landlord filed an appeal which was accepted. Muhammad Umar thereafter filed an S. A. -O., before the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition. .
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.
The petitioner (tenant) raised the same contentions relating .To the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in relation to the property in question as raised by him before the High Court which were repelled (by the High Court) with the following observation :.-.
"I am afraid, this contention has no force in the given circumstances. At the time when the premises had been leased out it was open site which was subject-matter of the lease deed. No industrial concern as such was leased out. Further, the lease deed itself indicates that super- structure to be raised by the appellant was to be removed after the expiry of the lease period. It means that open site actually was the premises which were leased out. In the circumstances the view taken by learned District Judge, in the given circumstances of the case appears to be correct."
The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that it has been clearly stated in the Lease Deed that only the plot in question was leased out and not any industrial concern. It is also stated therein that on the expiry of the, lease, the super-structure was to be removed. As we such are In respectful agreement with the observation of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit.
M. Z. M.