NAZAR MUHAMMAD BUTT AND ANOTHER vs FATEH MUHAMMAD
The petitioners, tenants of a disputed shop, challenged concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Additional District Judge, and the High Court in favor of the respondent landlord. Ejectment was sought on grounds of personal bona fide use and intended demolition and reconstruction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended for the first time that the landlord failed to allege and prove an essential requirement under section 13(o)(ii)(b) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, namely that he did not occupy another suitable building for his business in the same urban area. The Supreme Court held that the objection was never raised at any earlier stage of the proceedings, nor was an issue framed regarding it, and there was no suggestion that the landlord actually possessed any such building. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that a new mixed question of fact and law regarding statutory requirements for ejectment cannot be raised for the first time before the apex court without prior pleading or framing of issues.
- Can a tenant raise a new objection regarding statutory requirements for ejectment for the first time before the Supreme Court without having pleaded it or sought an issue in the lower forums?
- Whether failure to allege and prove non-occupation of another suitable building under the rent laws vitiates an ejectment order when no such plea was raised during the trial.
- Section 13(o)(ii)(b), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioners were tenants in respect of the disputed shop under the respondent, and they have been aggrieved by the order of ejectment passed against them by the Rent Controller and main--tained in the 1st and 2nd appeals by the Additional District Judge and the High Court respectively.
2. The ejectment had been claimed on two grounds, namely, (1) the respon--dent bona fide required the disputed shop for personal use and occupation; and (2) the respondent bona fide and reasonably intended to demolish the existing structure and reconstruct the building.
3. It has been contended before us that under section 13(o)(ii)(b) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 one of the essentials for ejectment in the case of a non-residential building is that the applicant for ejectment is not occupying in the same urban area in which the dispute building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the same may be, suitable for his needs at the time, and as this essential was neither alleged to have been fulfilled nor proved in the case, the order of ejectment was illegal.
4. It appears that this objection was never raised by the petitioners at any stage of the case earlier, and they never asked for the framing of an issue on it. We, therefore, think that it is now too late for them to raise this issue. There has not been the remotest suggestion that the respondent had any such building or rented land as is contemplated under the aforesaid section 13(a)(ii)(b) of the said Ordinance.
5. There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.