ABDUL SALAM vs BANARAS KHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order, where the petitioner contended that the second ejectment petition filed by the landlord on the ground of personal need was barred by Section 14 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, having previously been raised in an earlier petition. The core legal question was whether a second ejectment petition is barred under Section 14 of the Ordinance when the first petition was withdrawn pursuant to an out-of-court compromise without a decision on merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since no decision on merits was given in the first ejectment petition, the issue was not finally decided, and therefore Section 14 does not operate as a bar to raising the plea of personal need in a subsequent petition. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar against subsequent ejectment applications under rent restriction laws requires a prior adjudication on merits and does not apply where the earlier petition was simply withdrawn pursuant to a compromise without a judicial determination.
- Whether a second ejectment petition is barred under Section 14 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the first petition was withdrawn following an out-of-court compromise?
- Does the withdrawal of an ejectment petition without a decision on merits constitute a final adjudication for the purposes of attracting a statutory bar against subsequent petitions?
- Section 14, Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is being sought to be ejected pursuant to an ejectment petition, which is the second petition seeking his ejectment and it is based on the same ground which was taken in the first petition, namely, that the landlord required the premises for his personal need. Since such a second petition filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant (petitioner herein) was barred by Section 14 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the order of ejectment passed against him was not tenable and liable to be set aside.
2. ' It appears that the respondent/landlord had indeed filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant earlier wherein he had raised the contention that he required the premises for his personal need but that this petition was withdrawn, as the parties compromised the matter out of Court. Since, however, no decision on the aforesaid plea was given on merits in the first ejectment petition, this issue cannot be said to have been finally decided therein.
3. ' In these circumstances, we do not think that Section 14 can be pleaded as a bar to raising this plea in the second petition.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT vs ABDUL RAZZAK 1999 YLR 2022
- UNIVERSAL MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORE through Proprietor Nasir Baig vs KAZI & SONS and another 1996 CLC 356
- (M/S) UNIVERSAL MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORE vs (M/S) KAZI AND SONS, And K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 236