MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs MUHAMMAD SHARAFUDDIN and 10 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant in a Cantonment area against the dismissal of his Constitutional petition by the High Court, which upheld his eviction order on the ground of personal requirement by the landlord. The petitioner and his brother Sadiq occupied twin shops that were proceeded against for eviction. While the petitioner's litigation underwent remands and a second round of dismissal, the High Court had factored in the finality of an ejectment order against Sadiq in shop No. 616, reasoning that conflicting outcomes would make execution impossible. The core legal question concerned whether the finality of the eviction order against the co-occupant was correctly ascertained and how it impacted the petitioner's case. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted because the factual premise regarding the finality of Sadiq's eviction was contested, and the success of Sadiq in his separate challenge would create a reciprocal reverse situation. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal is warranted to prevent conflicting judicial outcomes in interconnected eviction proceedings concerning amalgamated properties.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when interconnected eviction proceedings risk producing conflicting outcomes?
- Does the finality of an ejectment order against a co-occupant justify the dismissal of a tenant's constitutional petition regarding an amalgamated property?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant in Cantonment area, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Constitutional petition, which had arisen out of the orders of his eviction passed on the ground of requirement of the respondent/landlord.
2. ' The petitioner and his brother Sadiq, occupants of a twin-shop No,616 and 617, were proceeded against for eviction. The applications were dismissed. Two appeals were filed. Both were dismissed - one on technical ground and the other on merits. Two writ petitions were filed in the High Court.
3. They were accepted and the cases were remanded. After remand the case against the petitioner was decided in respondents' favour on merits. The writ petition of the petitioner, in the second round, was dismissed. He has, therefore, sought leave to appeal.
4. ' At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce that part of the impugned judgment which took note of the case against Sadiq and treated the circumstances therein as going against the petitioner. It reads as follows:- "The ejectment order passed against the occupant of No,616 (Sadiq), it appears, has not been challenged and consequently has become final. In the event of acceptance of this writ petition, the execution of the order of eviction of shop No,616 which is now amalgamated with shop No,617 in issue, would become impossible and that order would also stand suspended till the final decision regarding the present shop. The petition merits dismissal, there being no substance in it."
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the ejectment order against Sadiq has not yet become final. He has argued that the appellate order impugned before the High Court was without jurisdiction; that in any case the appeal had become time-barred, and lastly, that the respondent did not bona fide require the shop in dispute.
6. Even if the petitioner fails in substantiating his pleas, it appears just, proper and fair to grant leave to appeal in this ease, because in the eventuality of Sadiq's success in his challenge to the order of eviction, the same reverse situation would develop as was visualised by the High Court in the impugned judgment against the petitioner. We accordingly grant leave to appeal.
7. Security Rupees five thousand ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to file all necessary additional documents, the copies of the order passed in Sadiq's case upto the highest stage shall also be produced to be made part of the record of this appeal as soon as possible.
8. ' Status-quo to continue in the meanwhile.