TAYYABA Versus FAZAL ELAHI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that restored an eviction order granted by a Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had sought eviction of the petitioners, who were tenants, on the ground that the premises were required for reconstruction. While the Rent Controller initially allowed the eviction, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding that the proposed reconstruction could proceed without vacating the premises. The High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the appellate order, finding that the Additional District Judge had misread the record regarding the feasibility of the construction. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the existing and proposed construction plans and concurred with the High Court's finding that the proposed work could not be executed while the house remained occupied. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified the misreading of the record and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby affirming the eviction order.
- Can a landlord obtain an eviction order on the ground of reconstruction if the proposed work requires the premises to be vacated?
- Does the High Court have the authority to set aside an appellate order if it finds a misreading of the record?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J- -The petitioners are occupying a house as tenant under respondent No.1 who filed an application for their eviction. One of the pleas taken by respondent No.1 was that he needed the house for the purpose of reconstruction. The Rent Controller found merit in this plea and allowed the application. On appeal the Additional District Judge thought that the reconstruction intended to be undertaken by respondent No.1 could be carried out without evicting the petitioners. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Respondent No.1 invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the order of the Additional District Judge. The High Court found that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the record. Consequently, it declared the order of the learned Additional District Judge to be. without lawful authority and restored that of the learned Rent Controller. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners an also seen the plan showing the existing position of the house and the plan of the proposed construction. We agree with the High Court that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the record, for, the proposed construction cannot be carried out without getting the house vacated. Leave is accordingly refused.
S.Q./T-18/S Leave refused.