MUKHTAR PIPE COMPANY Through Its Proprietor Mukhtar Ahmad vs Mian
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute between a tenant and a landlord regarding an ejectment application. The petitioner-tenant challenged an order allowing the landlord's son to evict the tenant based on personal need, despite a previous failed attempt by the father to evict the same tenant from the same premises. The core legal questions involved whether Section 14 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, barred a subsequent ejectment application based on personal need due to the principle of constructive res judicata, and whether the landlord's failure to disclose existing business premises constituted a suppression of material facts invalidating the claim of bona fide personal requirement. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the contentions regarding the alleged mechanization of the landlord and the potential applicability of res judicata, found that the issues raised required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the deposit of security, and issued an interim order restraining the disturbance of the petitioner's possession, pending the final adjudication of the matter.
- Does Section 14 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 preclude a fresh ejectment application on the ground of personal use if a previous application was dismissed?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to successive ejectment applications filed by family members regarding the same tenancy?
- Is a landlord's failure to disclose the possession of other suitable business premises a valid ground to defeat an ejectment application based on personal need?
- Section 14, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Petitioner-company is a tenant of a shop and godown underneath in the Crown Hotel Building, 2, Brandreth Road, Lahore. The building was owned by one Mian Taj Din.
In the same building, in another shop his son Mian Ahsan Taj has been carrying on business. Firstly, Mian Tai Din sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal need. Ultimately his application for ejectment of the petitioner was dismissed after re- appraisal of the evidence on record by the then learned District Judge, Lahore (now Judge of the Lahore High Court) on 14-1-1985.
2. Subsequently the owner's son, respondent No.1 filed an ejectment application against the petitioner saying that he was orally gifted the shop in question and he needed if for his personal use. The application was resisted by the petitioner and it was controverted that the respondent needed the shop for personal use as he already possessed another shop in the same property where he was carrying on business. The application was, however, allowed, by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 10-4-1989. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed by an Additional District Judge on 16-10-1989. The petitioner-tenant filed a Writ Petition No.7671 of 1989. Three contentions were raised; firstly, that section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 precluded fresh ejectment application on the ground of personal use, rule of constructive res judicata would be applicable, secondly, that the bona fide personal requirement of the shop by the respondent was not established; and, thirdly, that the respondent landlord was guilty of suppression of material facts inasmuch as he was already in possession of the shop in the same building but instead of its forthright disclosure made a deliberate false statement that he was not in possession of any business premises suitable for his needs. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in limine vide order dated 2-12-1989. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the overall context of the litigation it would be apparent that firstly the father tried to oust the petitioner from his tenancy and when he failed an ejectment application was filed by his son saying that he had been donated the shop in question by an oral gift and notwithstanding that he had another shop in the same building where he was carrying on business, he wanted the shop in question. It was submitted that the respondent was not entitled to relief under the law which was intended to give protection to tenants and the respondent's mechanization should not have been allowed to succeed.
4. Contentions raised require consideration.
5. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.5,000 shall be deposited. The petitioner shall continue to pay the rent at the usual rate. In the meanwhile he shall not be disturbed in his possession.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and another 2001 C.L.R. 1735
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and anothers 2001 YLR 2259