ABDUL QADIR vs Sh. MUHAMMAD IDRIS
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant regarding a shop room. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant's ejectment based on the landlord's bona fide personal requirement and the need for reconstruction, rejecting the allegation of rent default. This order was upheld by the District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in second appeal. The core legal question was whether the landlord's application was mal fide because it included grounds not raised in a previously dismissed ejectment petition. The Supreme Court held that the mere omission of grounds in an earlier petition does not establish mala fides, as personal requirements may arise subsequently. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting the landlord's evidence remained unrefuted. The key principle laid down is that the failure to include specific grounds for ejectment in a prior application does not preclude a landlord from relying on those grounds in a subsequent application, provided the requirement is supported by evidence at the trial stage.
- Does the failure to include specific grounds for ejectment in an earlier petition automatically render a subsequent petition mal fide?
- Can a landlord seek ejectment on grounds of personal requirement even if those grounds were not asserted in a prior, unsuccessful ejectment application?
- Is a finding of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises subject to interference in second appeal when based on unrefuted evidence?
1. ' HAMOODUR REHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the ahore High Court in a second appeal arising out of an ejectment proceeding.
2. ' The respondent herein filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop room at Chishtian which had been rented out the year 1963, on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement, recon traction of the shop and the default of the petitioner.
3. ' The Rent Controller found that there was no default but held that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupy section and for the purpose of reconstruction of the shop.
4. Hence ejectment was allowed on these grounds, An appeal from this order failed before the District Judge, Bahawalpur. In second appeal, the High Court refused to interfere. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
5. ' It is contended on his behalf that the whole application was mal fide because an earlier application for ejectment on the ground of default alone had been dismissed on the 16th May 1972, yet the present petition for ejectment was filed on the 11th November 1972, fraudulently adding two other grounds.
6. ' This fact by itself does not establish mala fides nor does the fact that the grounds on which ejectment was now sought had not been included in the earlier petition.
7. ' All the three Courts below have, after taking into consideration the evidence, come to the conclusion that the premises were genuinely required by the landlord. Indeed, the learned Judge in the High Court is of the view that there is no ground for interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below as the evidence is practically one-sided. The landlord's evidence stands unrequited.
8. The contention that since these grounds were not taken in the first application for ejectment it must be held that the landlord did not require the premises for his own use is fallacious, because, the requirement may well have arisen subsequently. In any event since the present requirement is based on the evidence on the record, the question as to whether a similar ground was available earlier or not cannot be raised at this stage. It should have been raised at the trial stage if it was intended to raise it as a plea in bar to the proceedings.
9. ' We think that the High Court has rightly refused to interfere. This petition has no merits and is, accordingly dismissed.