GHULAM FATIMA Versus MUHAMMAD AHSAN
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the eviction of the petitioners (tenants) from a shop under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, based on the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the landlord was justified in amending his eviction application to include the ground of personal requirement after his own eviction from a previously rented business premises. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no misreading of evidence. The Court held that a landlord is entitled to seek possession of their own property for business purposes, particularly after being evicted from rented premises. The Court further affirmed that allowing an amendment to include the ground of personal requirement during the pendency of proceedings is permissible to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were granted two months to vacate the premises upon their undertaking.
- Is a landlord entitled to amend an eviction application to include the ground of personal requirement during the pendency of proceedings?
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant from his own property after being evicted from a previously rented business premises?
- Does the inclusion of a new ground for eviction via amendment constitute an unjustified afterthought if the landlord's circumstances have changed?
- Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has beer. sought from judgment dated 11‑4‑19877 of the Peshawar High Court whereby a First Appeal of the respondent/landlord in a rent case, was allowed; and, the petitioners/ tenants were ordered to be evicted under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, on the ground of landlord's requirement.
2. According to the learned counsel the respondent and his brother (Muhammad Ramzan) were doing joint business in a rented shop. Both of them also owned one shop each, one of which is the suit property. Said Ramzan obtained ejectment of his tenant for joint use of the two brothers. The respondent also sought petitioners' eviction on grounds other than personal requirement. However, he added the ground of personal requirement subsequently without any basis and got his application amended. This, it is further stated, was an after thought and therefore the learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed respondent's application. The reversal of that decision by the High Court in first appeal is unjustified, as it is based on misreading of evidence and non‑consideration of the point about unjustified amendment in the eviction application. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we have not been able to discover any misreading by the High Court. In any case it is not denied that the respondent was doing his business in a rented shop. He was within his right to make choice of his own shop which was on rent with the petitioners. Moreover. it is not denied that the respondent had been evicted from the rented shop.
4. In the circumstances of this case the respondent was justified in seeking amendment of his application for eviction so as to include the ground of personal requirement. He, having been evicted from rented shop during the pendency of the proceedings earlier instituted by him on other grounds, was rightly granted permission to amend, so as to avoid multiple proceedings.
5. In the result, we find no force in this petition. It is dismissed.
6. The petitioners are allowed two months' time with consent of respondent's learned counsel, on the undertaking to handover vacant possession to the respondent, without execution proceedings.
7. M.I./G‑98/S Petition dismissed.