Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and another vs Messrs BASCO ENTERPRISE LTD. and others
Two petitions for leave to appeal were filed by landlords against the judgments of the High Court, which had allowed writ petitions filed by evicted tenants. The High Court had held that non-residential premises leased out for commercial purposes could not be vacated for the personal residential use of the landlord. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a non-residential building could be got vacated for residential purposes under the relevant rent restriction laws, a matter treated by the Court as one of first impression. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, noting the absence of direct binding precedents supporting the proposition that non-residential premises cannot be converted or got vacated for residential use. The Court directed the preparation of appeals on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
- Can a non-residential building be got vacated for the personal residential use of the landlord?
- Whether premises leased out for commercial purposes can be claimed by a landlord for residential purposes?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Two petitions have been filed in separate rent restriction matters by the landlord's side. By separate orders, writ petitions filed by tenants ordered to be evicted, have been allowed by the High Court on the similar grounds.
2. ' In one case (C.P.76/1988) the learned counsel has argued that the reasoning of the High Court to the effect that non-residential premises could not have been ordered to be vacated for personal use of the landlady for residential purposes, suffers from error of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. He has also argued that decisions of this Court to the effect that a residential building cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes would not be attracted. He further stated that there is no judgment of this Court to support the view taken by the High Court that non-residential premises cannot be got vacated for residential purposes.
3. ' In the other case (C.P. 261/1988) a landlord has been non-suited by the High Court after his success before the two learned Courts below on the ground that a property leased out for commercial purposes could not be claimed by him for personal residential use.
4. After hearing the arguments in support of these two petitions, we deem it a matter of first impression; to examine whether a non-residential building cannot be got vacated for residential purposes. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted in both the cases.
5. ' Security Rs,5,000 in each case.
6. ' The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file necessary additional documents within two months.