Sheikh TAJ ALI vs Syed ABDUL HAQ SHAH
This matter concerns a dispute over the execution of an ejectment order against a tenant. The respondent landlord initiated proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, leading to a compromise order requiring the petitioner tenant to vacate the premises by a specific date. Upon failing to vacate, the petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging a new tenancy agreement. While the petitioner simultaneously sought a temporary injunction to restrain execution, the lower courts dismissed this request. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of the temporary injunction, viewing it as superfluous. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner's pending application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which asserts a novation of tenancy, requires a formal inquiry and evidence. The Court held that the executing court must adjudicate this pending application on its own merits before proceeding with the actual ejectment. Any prior observations by the High Court regarding the validity of the alleged new rent note shall not prejudice the final determination of the Section 47 application.
- Must an executing court decide a pending application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before proceeding with an ejectment order?
- Does an allegation of a new tenancy agreement based on a disputed rent note require a formal inquiry and evidence before an ejectment order can be executed?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner was the respondent's tenant in the disputed premises since 1966, wherein he was carrying on automobile business. The respondent filed an application against the petitioner under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, on the ground that he needed the premises for his personal use in order to start business therein along with his son. A compromise was effected between the parties, by which the petitioner was allowed to continue in occupation of the premises for two more years on the enhanced rent of Rs.340 per mensem, and an order was passed to that effect by the Rent Controller on the 26th of January 1970, direct--ing that the premises shall be vacated by the petitioner on the 26th of January 1972.
2. The petitioner did not vacate the premises on that date, and when the respondent sought to execute the order of the Rent Controller, he filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objecting to the execution, on the ground that the respondent had agreed to renew his tenancy for a further period of eleven months from the 25th of January 1972 on an enhanced rent of Rs. 440 per mensem. For this allegation, he relied on a Rent Note dated the 25th of January 1972, which, however, did not bear the signature of the respondent. Simultaneously, he asked for injunction to restrain the respondent from executing the ejectment order, which has been dismissed by the Courts below, including the High Court, to which the matter was taken by way of revision.
3. It seems to us that after the petitioner had filed his applica--petition under section 47, C. P. C., objecting to his eviction on the ground, as stated in his application, on the basis of novation of tenancy, which needed an inquiry and evidence, his ejectment could not have been ordered till the decision of that petition, and the further effort made by him to defeat his ejectment by a temporary injunction was a superfluity. The prayer for a temporary injunc--petition was rightly refused, and we see no ground to interfere in the discretionary order made by the Courts below. However, as pointed out above, the application of the petitioner under section 47, C. P. C., which is still sub judice, has to be decided by the executing Court before the actual ejectment of the petitioner is ordered, that is to say, by actual execution of the ejectment order made by the Rent Controller.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the High Court has already discounted the Rent Note which is the main basis of the petitioner's objection petition under section 47, C. P. C. We would like to observe that that application has to be decided on its own merits and on evidence. Any observation that had been made in the order of the High Court bearing on the point, will not prejudice the decision of that petition.
5. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ISMAIL vs Sub. GUL INAYAT SHAH 1986 MLD 1310
- QURBAN HUSSAIN vs Haji Choudhry MANZOORULHASAN 1983 CLC 201
- QASIM ALI vs Mst. SAKINA AND Other 1973 SCMR 307