Messrs ALLY BROTHERS & Co.Limited vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had refused to set aside an eviction order following the death of the landlord. The respondent landlord had successfully obtained an eviction order against the petitioner for personal use, which was upheld on appeal and subsequently challenged in a writ petition that was dismissed. After the landlord's death, the petitioner sought review, arguing that the personal need for the premises had extinguished with her demise. The High Court dismissed the review, holding that the eviction proceedings had concluded during the landlord's lifetime, thereby vesting the right to possession in her heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, ruling that once eviction proceedings have reached a final conclusion during the lifetime of the landlord, the right to repossess the property vests in the landlord and subsequently passes to their heirs. Consequently, the petitioner's plea that the cause of action abated upon the landlord's death was rejected as the legal proceedings had already attained finality.
- Does a landlord's right to evict a tenant for personal use abate if the landlord dies after the eviction order has attained finality?
- Can an eviction order based on personal need be challenged on the ground of the landlord's death after the proceedings have concluded?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J.-- The respondent Fehmeeda Khanum sued for the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop situate on the Mall, Rawalpindi, on the ground that she required it for her own personal use.
2. ' By an order dated the 1st of October, 1982, the Rent Controller allowed her prayer which was upheld in appeal. The petitioner, thereupon, challenged this order in Writ Petition No, 202 of 1983, which was dismissed in limine.
3. ' Fehmeeda Khanum expired on the 7th of June, 1983. Accordingly, the petitioner applied to the High Court for review of the order on the ground that as the eviction was ordered for her personal need which no longer existed as she had died, therefore, the order of eviction should be declared as null and void. The High Court dismissed the review petition by its order, dated the 3rd of July, 1983, holding that as Fehmeeda Khanum died on the 7th of June, 1983, after the dismissal of the writ petition there was no ground to review the order. However, an observation was made that if the petitioner so chooses he could file a fresh petition to seek his remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a fresh petition in the High Court which was also dismissed in limine on the 18th of July, 1983.
4. Therein the same plea was taken that with the demise of Fehmeeda Khanum her cause of action had also died with her as the need as for her own personal benefit.
5. The High Court while distinguishing the cases cited on the ground that the landlord had died during the pendency of the proceedings held that no such feature was available in the instant case as the proceedings had finally come to a conclusion during her lifetime. Therefore, the right to re-possess her property having come to vest in her lifetime, will pass on to her heirs on her demise.
6. This conclusion in or view is unexceptionable as such a plea could not be taken after the proceedings had finally concluded.
7. ' In this view of the matter, the petition has no force and is dismissed .