REHMAT ALI vs FAZAL KARIM And 4 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a landlord challenging an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition against the Member, Board of Revenue's decision to set aside an ejectment order against a tenant. The petitioner contended, relying on the precedent in Lucas v. S.M. Nasim, that the lower authorities erroneously assumed an ejectment order for default in rent payment required a separate decree for arrears of rent. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner was not non-suited on the basis of lacking a separate decree for arrears, rendering the reliance on the Lucas case inapplicable. Furthermore, regarding the petitioner's alternative grounds for ejectment, specifically non-cultivation and damage to the land, the Court held that the High Court's factual findings on these matters did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the grounds for appeal were without merit, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Is a separate decree for arrears of rent a mandatory prerequisite for an ejectment order against a tenant based on default?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings made by the High Court regarding grounds for ejectment such as non-cultivation or damage to land?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by a landlord (in respect of land tenancy) against a tenant, the order of whose ejectment was set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue; and, petitioner's writ petition challenging the Member, Board of Revenue's order, was dismissed by the High Court.
2. Learned counsel relying on Lucas v. S.M. Nasim Member (Rev.) Board of Revenue Punjab PLD 1984 SC 227 contended that the High Court and the Member, Board of Revenue, were wrong in assuming that no order for ejectment of a tenant could be passed without first obtaining a separate decree regarding arrears of rent. ' "
3. It is correct that the respondents/tenants were sought to be ejected on ground of default in payment of rent but the approach of the Member, Board of Revenue, is different from what has been understood by the learned counsel. The petitioner has not been non-suited on the ground that no separate decree for recovery of arrears of rent was obtained by him. That being so, the contention raised by the learned counsel on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Lucas, is without force.
4. As a last resort, the learned counsel contended that the respondents-tenants could be ejected on other grounds taken by the petitioner including non-- cultivation in accordance with customary practice and damage to the land. The treatment of this point by the learned Judge in the High Court on the factual basis, does not call for any interference by this Court. This petition fails and leave to appeal is refused.