Mst. MENO and others vs ABDUS SATTAR ANSARI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioners under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act XI of 1963. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the Peshawar High Court subsequently allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered the ejectment of the tenants. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the landlord failed to testify on oath regarding his requirement for the premises as a retired government servant. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the requirement was clearly pleaded in the original application. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court's order for ejectment was also independently supported by a finding of subletting, a ground the petitioners' counsel failed to challenge. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, holding that the High Court's decision was sound and did not warrant interference. The judgment affirms that where multiple grounds for ejectment exist, such as subletting, the failure to challenge such findings renders the appeal unsustainable.
- Is an ejectment order sustainable if it is supported by a finding of subletting that remains unchallenged?
- Does the failure of a landlord to testify on oath regarding a specific requirement invalidate an ejectment application if that requirement was duly pleaded?
- Section 17, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act XI of 1963
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Mst. Meno and others seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 8-6-1988.
2. ' Abdus Sattar respondent No,1 in this petition moved an application under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act XI of 1963 for ejectment of Dilbar Khan and another from Shop No,1020, Kali Bari Bazar, Peshawar Cantt.
3. ' The Rent Controller dismissed the application by order dated 16-2-1987. Abdus Sattar and others filed first appeal in the Peshawar High Court. That was allowed on 8-6-1988. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the landlord when examined on oath by the trial Court never stated that he being a retired Government servant wanted the premises to start his business.
5. ' We don't find any force in the contention because the aforesaid fact was duly disclosed in the application filed by the respondents.
6. ' Moreover, there is another ground on which ejectment has been ordered and that is subletting.
7. This finding the learned counsel was unable to assail. Hence we don't think there is any point which needs consideration. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.