Mrs. SHAHNOOR FAZAL vs GHULAM AKBAR MANGI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that reversed a Rent Controller's decision, thereby dismissing an ejectment application filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The core legal question was whether a landlord can succeed in an ejectment application based on personal need when the specific grounds for that need—specifically, the insufficiency of currently vacant premises—were not pleaded in the original application or affidavit, but only emerged during cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified a fatal deficiency in the petitioner's case. The Court affirmed that a party must plead and prove the specific grounds for personal need, including why existing vacant accommodation is insufficient. Because the petitioner failed to plead that the vacant flat was inadequate for her requirements, the Rent Controller erred by basing the ejectment order on evidence not supported by the pleadings. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that evidence cannot substitute for necessary pleadings in rent control proceedings.
- Can a landlord succeed in an ejectment application based on personal need if the specific grounds for that need were not pleaded?
- Is evidence adduced during cross-examination sufficient to support a claim for ejectment if the underlying facts were not pleaded in the application?
- Does a failure to plead the insufficiency of existing vacant premises preclude a landlord from seeking ejectment of a tenant on grounds of personal need?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- Leave to appeal is sought against the order of the High Court, dated 19th February, 1984, by which First Rent Appeal No. 851 of 1982, was allowed and the ejectment application was dismissed.
2. The order is challenged on the ground that the disputed premises was required in good faith for the residence of the petitioner whose husband had been promoted as Vice-President of the United Bank, and, accordingly, was not entitled to an official residence. The Rent Controller accepted the ground and ordered the ejectment of the respondent holding 'that whenever the disputed flat will be vacated then the applicant will shift to his own accommodation after joining both the flats together'. This was not the case of the petitioner in her application for ejectment nor in the affidavit filed by her husband who was her attorney, and it was only in his cross-examination that the need for this disputed premises was stated in the manner in which the Rent Controller has accepted it. If at all, the flat lying vacant was not suitable for her needs it was then necessary that she should have made out a case that the flat which was lying vacant was not sufficient for her needs and that it was for that reason that the disputed flat was needed by her. This was a legal requirement which had to be pleaded and proved. Not having done so, it was not open to the Rent Controller to take notice of what transpired in the evidence. The High Court took note of this deficiency and rightly held that in the absence of such a pleading it cannot be said that the disputed premises was required in good faith. Accordingly, it reversed the conclusion of the trial Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to convince us as to how in the absence of a specific pleading as to the vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable.
4. The petition is thus without any merit and dismissed.
Cited by 15 cases
- Engineers & Professionals Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Institute 2019 SHC 16
- ZAHEER SONS JEWELLERS Versus MUHAMMAD AYAZ KHAN 2017 CLCN 75
- HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL MAJID 2016 CLCN 74
- WAQAR AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KHAN 2016 YLRN 82
- ABDUL MAJID vs MASHKOOR AHMED and 2 others 2013 YLR 1673
- SHAMAUDDIN vs IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST) 2010 CLC 337
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD FEROZE Versus Sheikh ALLAH LOK 2008 CLC 1724
- ABDUL HANEEF KHAN vs VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI CENTRAL and 2 others 2008 CLC 1271
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE vs SHAKEEL AHMED and 2 others 2007 CLC 717
- Mrs. TAHIRA DILAWAR ALI KHAN through Attorney and 2 others vs Mst. SYEDA 2007 PLD Karachi 50
- Mst. YASMEEN MALIK and others vs Mrs. SAFIA MALIK and others 2005 PLJ Karachi 68
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHALID 2000 CLC 764
- ABDULJILLANI vs Mst. JEENAT BI 1999 MLD 3331
- Mst. FATIMA BAI And 7 Others vs KARACHI INDUSTRIAL SCRAPE CO. And Another 1997 MLD 2268
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus ZAMIR AHMAD QIDWAI 1994 CLC 1751