Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs Mst. SHAH SULTAN AND OTHERS
This civil petition arose from an ejectment dispute where the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, which had dismissed the landlady's eviction petition. The core legal question was whether the landlady was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of reconstruction when she had produced an approved site plan from the Cantonment Board. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the lower authorities erred in law by denying eviction. The Court established that where a landlord produces an approved site plan for reconstruction and there is no evidence indicating that the application is a mere contrivance to dislodge the tenants, the ground for eviction on the basis of reconstruction is legally established.
- Whether a landlord is entitled to evict tenants on the ground of reconstruction upon producing an approved site plan from the competent authority?
- Can an eviction petition for reconstruction be dismissed in the absence of evidence showing the claim is a mere contrivance to dislodge the tenants?
ORDER
1. ' Nasal HASAN SHAH, J.-The learned Chief Justice, by his order dated 25-10-1983, set aside the order of the Rent Controller, as upheld by the learned District Judge, dismissing the ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 1 for eviction of her tenants (petitioners herein) from the shop in dispute and found that they were liable to be ejected.
2. ' The learned Civil Judge found that the two functionaries, who had dealt with the ejectment petition earlier, had erred in law in holding that the respondent-landlady was not entitled to get the tenants evicted on the ground of reconstruction, although she had, alongwith the eviction application, produced a site plan from the Cantonment Board for reconstruction of the demised shop and there was nothing in the evidence on the record to show that this was done merely as a contrivance on her part, to dislodge the tenants from the demised shop.
3. After havin2 heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not consider that any case for interference is called for in the order impugned before us, 4 in the facts and circumstances, of this case.
4. ' This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.