EHSAN ELLAHI vs SAEEDA IRAM and others
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Judge in Chamber, which had allowed an ejectment application against him regarding a shop in Quetta. The respondents sought ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for one of the co-owners, Wahida Qureshi, to start an electronic appliances business. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the High Court reversed this decision. The petitioner challenged the ejectment, arguing that the bona fide requirement was not proven because the respondent was a government servant and that one of the co-owners, Abdul Majeed, had opposed the ejectment and accepted the petitioner as a tenant. The Supreme Court identified a critical legal issue regarding whether, in a situation where one co-owner opposes the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement of other co-owners, the remaining co-owners are entitled to obtain an ejectment order. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider this question of law concerning the rights of co-owners in ejectment proceedings.
- Can one or more co-owners obtain an ejectment order against a tenant on the ground of personal requirement when another co-owner opposes such ejectment?
- Does the opposition of one co-owner to an ejectment application filed by other co-owners on the ground of personal requirement invalidate the application?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber, whereby the ejectment: application filed against him was granted by the impugned judgment.
2. Saeeda ham, Sakina Irani, Rashida Naheed and Wahida Qureshi filed application for ejectment in respect of shop bearing No,1-4/7-B, Suraj Ganj Bazar, Quetta, on the ground that the shop is required for the personal use and occupation in good faith for Wahida Qureshi, It was pleaded that she would start the business of electronic appliances. It seems that during the pendency of ejectment application, Rashid Naheed died and her legal heirs namely, petitioners Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were brought on record. It has been stated at the Ear that Abdul Majeed, the husband of deceased Rashid has also died and the Deputy Commissioner has been appointed as guardian of respondents Nos.4 to 7, who are minors. The learned Controller dismissed the ejectment application. However, by the impugned judgment it has been allowed.
3. Mr. Ayaz Zahoor, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has contended that bona fide requirement of respondent No,3 has not been proved as she is a Government servant and cannot run ,a business. It was further contended that during the proceedings Abdul Majeed had not supported the case of respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 and had accepted the petitioner as a tenant.
From these facts it has emerged that one of the co-owners of the disputed premises does not want to eject the petitioner on the plea raised by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3. Miss Sakina respondent No,2 has appeared personally and opposed the petition. According to her, Abdul Majeed did not have cordial relation with his wife and it was because of that, that he had opposed the application conditionally. Mr. Ayaz has pointed out that even the Deputy Commissioner, who is guardian is not supporting the ejectment application. The question for consideration arises that where one co-owner opposes the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement of other co-owners, can the remaining co-owners or one of them obtain ejectment. Leave is-granted to consider the afore stated question.