Syed ASMATULLAH vs AMANULLAH KHAN And 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether an eviction application for the personal requirement of one co-owner (respondent No.2) is maintainable when the lease-deed was executed by another co-owner (respondent No.1), and whether a private settlement altering ownership could bar such an application. The Supreme Court held that all respondents are co-owners of the disputed property, that no proof of a private settlement was established, and that an eviction application for the personal requirement of a joint owner is maintainable. The key principle laid down is that co-owners can seek eviction of a tenant for the bona fide personal requirement of any of the co-owners, and collection of rent by one co-owner on behalf of others does not extinguish the rights of other joint owners.
- Whether an eviction application can be filed for the personal requirement of a co-owner when the lease-deed was executed by another co-owner?
- Is a private settlement among legal heirs regarding the ownership of a rented property required to be proved by evidence to oust other co-owners?
- Whether an eviction petition is maintainable by joint owners of a property where one co-owner was collecting rent on behalf of all owners?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment dated 1- 7-1990 of the High Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that an eviction application from the shop in question was filed by the respondents against the petitioner on 16-7-1986 on the ground of default and personal requirement of Nasrullah Khan. The application was contested and written statement was filed on.13-9-1986. Three issues were framed by the Rent Controller in respect of notice under section 13- A, default and personal requirement. The Rent Controller by means of order dated 30-11-1989 accepted the eviction application and decided the issue of personal requirement in favour of the respondents. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lease-deed was executed on 16-2-1984 between the petitioner and respondent No.1 as such their exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The eviction could not be sought for the requirement of respondent No.2.
4. The admitted feature of the case is that Gul Muhammad, father of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and husband of respondent No.3 was landlord of the disputed shop. He leased out the shop to the petitioner on 20-9-1979 and a lease agreement was executed. He expired in 1983. Thereafter a fresh lease deed was executed on 16-2-1984 between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a private settlement between the legal heirs of the deceased Gul Muhammad and the shop in question fell to the share of the respondent No.1. As such, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 could not file eviction application against the petitioner and under the law the shop could not be got vacated for the personal requirement of respondent No.2 who is brother of respondent No.1. This contention has no force. There is no proof of private settlement. No evidence was led to show that the respondent No.1 became the exclusive owner of the shop in question. All the three respondents are co---owners of the shop. They have not admitted any private settlement. The respondent No.1 was collecting the rent on behalf of the owners. The other co---owners are not supporting the case of the petitioner. As respondent No.2 is joint owner of the shop, therefore, application for his personal requirement was maintainable. There are concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts with regard to the bona fide requirement of the respondent. There is no misreading of evidence.
5. This petition has no force. The same is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.