Mst. UMME KHATOON vs Mst. UMME SALMA
The petitioner landlady sought the ejectment of the respondent tenant on the grounds of personal bona fide need and default. The Rent Controller allowed the application solely on the ground of default. Upon appeal, the Sind High Court set aside the eviction order. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan, contending that the failure to mention personal need in the statutory pre-litigation notice dated 1-4-1978 was inconsequential since personal need was specifically pleaded in the ejectment application and supported by evidence, relying on precedent. The core legal question concerned the effect of omitting the ground of personal need from the pre-litigation notice when it was duly pleaded in the rent application. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised an arguable issue requiring detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security in the sum of one thousand rupees, thereby settling that the matter merits a full hearing on merits.
- Does the failure to mention personal bona fide need in a pre-litigation notice invalidate a subsequent ejectment application where personal need is specifically pleaded?
- Whether an order of the High Court setting aside an eviction order based on default warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner, landlady applied for the ejectment of respondent on the grounds of personal bona fide need and default. The rent application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of default alone but the order of eviction was set aside by the learned Sind High Court on respondent's First Rent Appeal as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-mentioning of personal need in the notice, dated 1-4-1978, served on respondent before the filing of rent case, was inconsequential because the petitioner had specifically pleaded in the rent application that the premises were required by her for personal need and she had also given evidence in this behalf.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court reported as Ghulam Hussain v. Mrs. Chaman Sultan Shafi 1980 SCMR 9.
3. The above contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.1,000.
Cited by 3 cases
- KHAN MUHAMMAD KHAN vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT 2004 PLD Azad J&K 1
- JAN MUHAMMAD and others vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. and others 1993 CLC 1067
- Khan Muhammad Khan vs AJ&K Govt, Through Its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad & 5 Other K.L.R. 2004 Revenue Cases 143