Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 542

Sh. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Syed ABDUL AZIZ SHAH and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 542
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 630 of 1988
Date1988-08-13
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal challenged the eviction of a tenant on the grounds of the landlord's personal requirement, following the dismissal of the tenant's writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a landlord, having previously withdrawn an eviction application based on personal requirement without seeking permission to refile, was barred from filing a fresh application for the same ground under the principles of Order XXIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action for personal requirement can arise periodically depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not strictly applicable to rent cases, and its equitable principles should be used to advance justice rather than to penalize a party. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, determining that the landlord was not barred from filing the subsequent application.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the withdrawal of an eviction application without permission to refile bar a landlord from filing a subsequent application on the same ground of personal requirement?
  • Is the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 strictly applicable to rent cases?
  • Can the equitable principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be applied to penalize a party in a rent case?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
tenant evictionpersonal requirementwithdrawal of applicationCode of Civil Procedurerent lawcause of action

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This is tenant's petition for leave to appeal against his eviction on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent/landlord and against the dismissal of his writ petition in that behalf, by the High Court.

2. ' The question now left to be resolved is simple. Learned counsel has contended that the landlord having earlier withdrawn an application for eviction based on the same ground could not have filed a fresh application; because he had not sought permission to refile it. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. He has also cited some judgments to show that the principles underlying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, cm be applied to a rent case on grounds of equity.

3. The cause of action in a case of personal requirement, depending on the circumstances of each case, can arise from time to time. Moreover, C.P.C., it is not denied, is not applicable to the rent cases. Its equitable principle might be applied to advance justice. Here learned counsel wants us to apply the same to penalise the respondent. The position is untenable. The cases cited by him are not relevant. There is no force in this petition.

4. ' Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused. 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.

Cited by 5 cases

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