Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR RISHI vs RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN
The petitioner, a landlord, filed an ejectment application against the respondent tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, based on personal bona fide requirement, which was allowed by the Rent Controller. During the appeal before the High Court, the respondent sought to raise an additional ground under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, asserting that the landlord had obtained possession of another portion of the building and thus no longer required the disputed premises. The core legal question concerned whether a new plea regarding subsequent acquisition of premises could be raised for the first time in appeal without affording the landlord an opportunity to rebut it in the pleadings. The Supreme Court held that the contention required examination and granted leave to appeal to consider whether the landlord was seriously prejudiced by the admission of such a plea without a proper foundation in the written statement.
- Can a tenant raise a new plea of subsequent acquisition of premises for the first time in appeal without pleading it in the written statement?
- Does the acquisition of another portion of the building by the landlord during the pendency of proceedings extinguish the need for the disputed premises?
- Is a landlord prejudiced when an appellate court allows an additional ground regarding alternative accommodation without giving an opportunity to rebut?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner, who is the landlord of the property bearing Municipal No.2-13/5-50 situated at Chuharmal Road, Quetta, filed an application for ejectment of the respondent on 26-5- 1978 under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground of his personal bona fide requirement. The application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 3-10-1985.
2. The petitioner had also applied for eviction of his another tenant namely Khudai` Nazar, from a portion of the same building situated on the ground floor, allegedly comprising of one room with amenities on 26-5-1987, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. Khudai Nazar had come up to this Court after his appeal was dismissed by the learned High Court, seeking leave to appeal through C . P . S . L . A . No. 62-Q of 1985 which was dismissed on 3rd May, 1986. The respondent, during the course of hearing of his appeal before the High Court, moved an application under section 151, C.P.C. Seeking permission to raise an additional ground in the memo of appeal as under:- "Since the present landlord had obtained possession of one portion of the building in question, hence he had got sufficient accommodation where he could reside and the portion in possession of the appellant was no more required by him for personal bona fide need."
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plea, that the petitioner had already secured possession of another premises, was not raised in the written statement by the respondent and as such the petitioner was seriously prejudiced inasmuch as he had no opportunity to show that even after having acquired possession of another premises from Khudai Nazar, he still bona fide required the premises in dispute according to his need. The above contention requires examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.500. Since a short point of law is involved, the appeal will be heard on the same record and is directed to be fixed during this session on 20-4-1987.
Cited by 1 case
- DILSHAD KHAN vs ZAHID MASOOD And 6 OTHER 1994 CLC 531