HASHAM KHAN vs MUJIBUR REHMAN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had restored an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a landlord, who is currently occupying a rented shop in the same urban area, is legally precluded from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a shop owned by the landlord on the grounds of personal bona fide need. The petitioner argued that the landlord's existing rented premises were more suitable for their business needs and that the eviction application was merely a pretext to increase rent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the statutory requirement for proving personal need does not extend to or cover other rented premises occupied by the landlord. The key principle laid down is that the term 'building' in the context of personal need for eviction refers exclusively to premises owned by the landlord, and a landlord's occupation of rented property does not bar them from seeking eviction from their own property.
- Does a landlord's occupation of a rented shop in the same urban area preclude them from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a shop owned by the landlord on the grounds of personal need?
- Does the statutory requirement for proving personal need for eviction extend to rented premises occupied by the landlord?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Mian Khalilur Rehman the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller, Lahore, District. Swabi, against the petitioner in respect of a shop for his personal use. It was pleaded in the application that he had purchased the shop from Abdul Hanan and wanted to do business in that shop. The application was resisted by the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 1-4-1992, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop within four months from the date of the order.
2. Aggrieved by the order of his ejectment from the disputed shop passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by the District Judge, Swabi, on 11-12- 1992, holding that the landlord was in occupation of a rented shop within the urban area where the shop in dispute was situated as such the landlord failed to prove his bona fide need for the use of the shop in question. The legal heirs of Mian Khalilur Rehman (contesting respondents) assailed the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge, through Writ Petition No, 6/1993, before the Peshawar High Court which was decided vide impugned judgment dated 5-4-1993, whereby the order of the District Judge was set aside and that of the Rent Controller was restored. Resultantly the ejectment petition was accepted. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the shop in dispute is situated in a Mohallah whereas the contesting respondents are in occupation of a rented shop which is situated in main Bazar more suitable for their need. The application seeking ejectment of the petitioner was moved to enhance the monthly rent thereof.
4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner who disclosed that the respondents have succeeded in obtaining possession of the disputed shop from petitioner in execution of the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The contention that the respondents are in occupation of a rented shop more suitable for their use are precluded to seek eviction of the petitioner from the shop owned by them is of no merit in view of the law laid down by this Court in Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 SC 442) wherein it has been held that: "The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the word 'building' can have no other meaning except that which is owned by the landlord. This is in accord with the rule of construction i,e, to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed.
' Accordingly the requirement in this sub-clause does not extend to cover the rented premises."
The learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court relied on the above authority in addition to the observation made by this Court in Manzoor Ahmad and others v. The District Judge, Okara (1988 SCM R 1211) as well as Mumtaz Hussain v. Muhammad Iqbal (1984 SCM R 576).
' In the result we find that this petition has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABBAS ALI vs GHULAM UMAR and others 1995 MLD 1971
- ABBAS ALI vs GHULAM UMAR And Other 1995 MLD 1971