MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs HASB UN NISA And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to determine whether a landlady can eject her tenant under Section 17(4)(5)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 to establish a joint business with her husband or family member, particularly when she is an illiterate housewife. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the landlord's right to seek ejectment for personal use involving family members. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the issue is no longer res integra as it has already been settled by this Court in previous jurisprudence, specifically establishing that a co-owner or landlord can take advantage of the relevant statutory provisions for personal or joint business needs. The key principle laid down is that a landlord or landlady is entitled to seek ejectment of a tenant for personal use or for establishing a business jointly with family members under the applicable rent restriction laws.
- Can a landlady seek the ejectment of her tenant under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 to establish a joint business with her husband or family member?
- Whether a co-owner or landlord can take advantage of Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 for premises needed by one of the co-owners or landlords?
- Is the question of ejectment for establishing a joint business with a family member considered res integra before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Section 17(4)(5)(i), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963
- Section 17(4)(b), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The question which arises in this petition for leave to appeal is whether a landlady can have her tenant ejected under Section 17(4)(5)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (X of 1963) on the ground that she wishes to establish therein a joint business with her husband or any other member of her family particularly when she is an illiterate housewife (in other words not a career woman).
2. Mr. K. M.A. Samdani, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, has submitted that according to his research there is no authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the above question. He admits that there is a judgment of the Sindh High Court on this question namely Messrs Bombay Corporation v. Mst. Amna Begum (1986 CLC 1628) wherein it has been held that a landlady could seek the ejectment of the tenant from a commercial premises if her husband wants to use the tenanted premises or where the landlady wants to use the premises jointly with the husband but according to him this pronouncement cannot be taken to be the last word on the issue involved.
3. We are afraid that the learned counsel's research has not been very thorough. This Court, in a recent judgment titled Parvaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others PLD 1988 SC 734 has dealt with this issue and found that where, a commercial premises was needed only by one of the three co-owners he, as one of the landlords, could take advantage of section 17(4)(b): The issue is, therefore, no longer res integra. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.
4. The interim order dated 11-12-1989, accordingly, also stands vacated.
Cited by 3 cases
- MEHMOOD ZAMAN KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR FAROOQ 2016 CLCN 86
- Mrs. MARYAM A. MUNIF vs Mrs. GHAZAL BUKHARI through Attorney 2015 CLC 1786
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs NISAR AHMAD and another 2002 CLC 526