Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 94

MUMTAZ BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 94
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 339-R of 1988
Date1988-10-26
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash
Authored byNasim Hasan Shah
ResultPetitions disposed of
Summary

This matter arises from ejectment proceedings initiated against tenants of a building in Rawalpindi by respondent No. 2 on the ground of reconstruction. Ejectment orders were passed against the petitioner, who occupies a Chobara on the first floor, while ejectment petitions against other tenants on the ground floor remained pending. The petitioner contended that since reconstruction can only occur after all tenants are ejected, her immediate ejectment would serve no practical purpose. The Supreme Court noted that petitions against the ground floor tenants were nearly finalized and adjourned the matter for two months, directing that the status quo continue in the interim.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a landlord seek ejectment of only one tenant for reconstruction when other tenants in the same building are yet to be evicted?
  • Whether interim status quo can be granted in ejectment proceedings pending the finalization of related eviction petitions against other tenants?
ejectmentreconstructionlandlord and tenantstatus quopending proceedings

ORDER

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--Respondent No,2 is seeking ejectment of all the tenants in a building situate in Qasai Gali, Rawalpindi on the ground of reconstruction.

2. Orders of ejectment against the petitioner who is occupying a Chobara on the first floor have been passed, which are impugned before us.

3. ' However, the petitions for ejectment of the other tenants who are occupying the ground floor portion of the building are still pending and have not been decided so far.

4. ' It is submitted that since the landlord can reconstruct the building only after all the tenants have been ejected, the ejectment of the petitioner herein at this stage, will be of no benefit to him.

5. ' Learned counsel for the landlord who is present in support of the caveat filed by him, states that the ejectment petitions filed against the tenants of ground floor portion are almost finalised. He has been directed by us to find out when those petitions are likely to be disposed of finally.

6. ' Adjourned for two months. Status quo to continue.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.