PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through SECRETARY EDUCATION, LAHORE And Others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the courts below ordering the ejectment of the petitioner, who operates a school in the rented premises. The landlord sought ejectment claiming the premises were required in good faith for his own use and the use of his sons, specifically stating at trial an intention to establish a school. The core legal question concerns whether a landlord can obtain the vacation of a residential building under the relevant rent restriction provisions for establishing a school rather than for personal residence. The Supreme Court observed that the statutory provision prima facie applies when a landlord requires the building for occupation by themselves or their children, and not for commercial purposes such as running a school, noting that evicting an existing school to start another would contravene the statutory intent. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further while maintaining the interim stay order during the pendency of the appeal.
- Whether a landlord can get a residential building vacated under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 for establishing a school instead of for personal residence?
- Does the requirement of a building for commercial purposes such as running a school fall within the scope of personal occupation under the rent restriction law?
- Section 13(3)(a)(i), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is a petition for leave against the judgments passed by the Courts below whereby ejectment of the petitioner herein who is running a school in the premises has been ordered.
2. The landlord-in his petition sought the ejectment of the petitioner, inter alia, on the following ground:---- "That the rented premises is required in good faith and bona fide manner by the petitioner for his own use and for the use of his sons. At present the petitioner and his sons are not in occupation of any other vacant premises suitable to his requirement nor any such premises was previously got vacated and rented out in the urban area where the property in question is situated.
3. However, at the trial of the position taken up by the landlord was that he required the premises to establish a school and in this connection stated as follows:---- The petitioner was found liable to ejectment on the ground that the landlord was entitled to get the tenant ejected under the provisions of clause 3 (a) (i) of section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance which lays down, inter alia:--- "3 (a)-- A landlord may apply to the Controller for the order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-
(i) in the case of a residential building, if-
(a) he requires it in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children."
4. Prima facie this proviso would apply where the landlord requires the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children and not for any commercial purpose such as running a school in the premises. Even otherwise to give effect to the plea of the landlord that he needs the premises for running a school when a school is already functioning therein would appear to make nonsense of the provisions of clause (a) (i) of subsection (3) of section 13 of the Ordinance.
5. The question, therefore, inter alia, arises whether a landlord can get a building vacated under clause (a) (i) of subsection (3) of section 13 of the Ordinance for establishing a school and not for his own residence?
6. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing as early as possible.
7. The interim order of the stay passed on 16-12-1986 will remain in operation during the pendency of the appeal.