MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Others vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the eviction of the respondent-tenant. The original landlord, Ghulam Muhammad, sought the ejectment of the respondent from a shop on the grounds of default, damage to property, and bona fide personal need. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original landlord died, and his legal heirs, the petitioners, were impleaded, subsequently filing an amended ejectment petition explicitly pleading their own bona fide personal need for the shop. While the Rent Controller dismissed the petition and held that personal need died with the original petitioner, the appellate authority accepted the plea of personal need. However, the High Court allowed the tenant's writ petition under the erroneous impression that the petitioners were solely relying upon the personal need of their deceased father rather than their own. The Supreme Court found force in the petitioners' contention that evidence regarding their independent personal need was duly led and considered, granting leave to appeal.
- Whether the bona fide personal need of a landlord abates upon his death during the pendency of ejectment proceedings?
- Can legal representatives of a deceased landlord amend an ejectment petition to plead their own personal need?
- Whether the personal need of the legal heirs can be considered when they are impleaded in ongoing ejectment proceedings?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- Ghulam Muhammad, father of the petitioners herein, was the owner of the shop bearing No.3-S-65 situated in Urdu Bazar, Sargodha. It was rented out to Muhammad Ilyas, respondent herein, at a monthly rent of Rs.300 per mensem. Ghulam Muhammad, on 21-1- 1979, filed an ejectment petition against Muhammad Ilyas, respondent, seeking his eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, bona fide personal need and damage to the rented premises. The application was resisted by the respondent.
2. During the pendency of the proceedings, Ghulam Muhammad died on 8-8-1980 and the petitioners herein, being the legal representatives of Ghulam Muhammad deceased, filed an application on 23-9-1980 for being impleaded as his legal heirs. This application was allowed by the Rent Controller. Thereafter, an amended petition for ejectment was filed by the present petitioners on 15-11-1980, in which they specifically took up the plea that the shop in dispute was needed by them bona fide for their personal need. A written reply to this amended petition was also filed on 16-12-1980 by the respondent.
3. The Rent Controller disposed of the petition by his order dated 2-3-1982. He found no merits in the application on account of his finding that there was neither any default in payment of rent, nor any damage done to the property and as regards the question of personal need it was held that it had died with the death of Ghulam Muhammad, the original petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal agreed with the Rent Controller that the petitioners had failed to establish any default in the payment of rent and damage to the property but accepted the plea of bona fide personal need and, accordingly, allowed the appeal. The respondent, thereupon, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. This was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the said learned Court on the ground that the personal need of the landlord or that of his sons could not be equated and merely because the father of the petitioners may have needed the shop for his personal use, the sons could not merely on that ground seek the ejectment of the respondent. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the last-mentioned order of the High Court.
5. Mr. A.W. Butt, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the learned Single Judge in the High Court has omitted to consider that after the death of the father of the petitioners, they had submitted an amended petition, in which they had pleaded that the shop in dispute was needed by them for their personal use. He also submitted that the evidence was led, to show that the premises it dispute needed for their personal use. Attention was drawn to the statement of Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner No.3, who appeared as A.W.5 and stated that the shop was needed for personal necessity.
6. There is, therefore, some force in the contention of the petitioner: that the learned Judge in the High Court was erred in thinking than the petitioners were relying upon the personal need of their father it order to seek ejectment of the respondent and were equating their need with the need of their father in the relevant regard.
7. Security Rs.1,000.
8. The appeal to be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and to be fixed for hearing as early, if possible, in the month of October, 1984.