MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from a commercial shop. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a subsequent ejectment application and the determination of genuine personal requirement by the landlord. The Supreme Court held that no fixed time limit applies to changed circumstances regarding personal requirement, and a second ejectment application is maintainable after a substantial lapse of time—in this case, seventeen years—provided the landlord establishes that the requirement is genuine. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the courts below properly satisfied themselves regarding the genuineness of the landlord's personal use requirement for himself and his son.
- Whether a second ejectment application is maintainable after the dismissal of a prior application?
- Can a fixed time limit be prescribed for changed circumstances regarding a landlord's personal requirement?
- What is required for a court to determine the validity of a landlord's personal use requirement in ejectment proceedings?
ORDER
1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---On 4-5-1989, Rent Controller, Lahore, ordered ejectment of Muhammad Sharif petitioner from shop in property No.C/1045, Chata Bazar, Lahore. He appealed to the District Judge. On 5-6-1989, the Additional District Judge dismissed the same.
2. Muhammad Sharif invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. The Constitution petition met the same fate.
3. Now he seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 3-9-1989.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner repeated the sane contentions which had been raised before the High Court and were repelled.
5. His main emphasis was that the second application was not maintainable. The landlord failed to prove that his requirement was genuine.
6. These submissions have no force. The second application for ejectment was repeated after the lapse of seventeen years.
7. In the first application the landlord wanted the property for his personal use. The second application was for his own as well as for his son's requirement.
8. No time limit can be fixed for changed circumstances and accordingly for personal requirement.
9. All that is required is that the Court must make sure that the requirement was genuine. This has been done. The petition is without any merit.
10. Dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed Yousaf Ali Shah vs Shoaib Khan and 5 others 2020 YLR 1516
- KHALID BROTHERS Versus SAJID HUSAIN 2016 CLCN 78