MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND Another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND 2 Other
This matter originated from three separate ejectment applications filed by the appellants, landlords of three shops in Jhang, against their respective tenants under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The landlords sought eviction on the grounds of reconstruction, having obtained the necessary sanction from the Municipal Committee. While the Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, and the High Court subsequently upheld the reversal in both second appeals and Letters Patent Appeals. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise. The core legal question concerned the terms of eviction and the landlords' obligation to re-induct the tenants post-reconstruction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in terms of the compromise, mandating that the tenants vacate the premises within one month to facilitate reconstruction. The Court held that the landlords must complete reconstruction within four months and offer the newly constructed shops back to the respondents as tenants, with rent to be fixed by the Rent Controller, while prohibiting the landlords from occupying or leasing the premises to others in the interim.
- Can a landlord be compelled to re-induct a tenant after reconstructing the premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- What are the obligations of a landlord regarding the timeline for reconstruction after obtaining an eviction order for that purpose?
- Is a landlord prohibited from leasing out newly reconstructed premises to third parties if the original tenant is entitled to re-induction?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 13(5-B), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-The dispute in these three appeals relates to the three shops situated in Block No. 10, Rail Bazar, Jhang. The property is owned by Manzoor Hussain and Muhammad Tahir appellants. They filed separate applications against the respective respondents in the three cases for their ejectments from the three shops under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground that they wanted to reconstruct the three shops after demolition for which they had already obtained the sanction from the Municipal Committee, Jhang. After hearing, the Rent Controller, Jhang allowed the three applications before him on the 29th November, 1963 and ordered the ejectments of the respective respondents from the premises.
2. But the order was reversed on separate appeals of the respective respondents accepted by the Additional District Judge, Jhang on the 24th February, 1966. Dissatisfied, the appellants went up in three second appeals against the order. On the 3rd April, 1968, a learned Judge of the then High Court of the West Pakistan rejected the appeals before him. This led to three Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants herein against the order of the learned Single Judge. On the 5th June, 1968, a Division Bench dismissed the three appeals before it.
3. During the course of the arguments addressed before us, the parties arrived at a compromise. In pursuance to this compromise, Manzoor Hussain and Mohammad Tahir appellants have agreed that they shall relet the three shops after reconstruction to the respective respondents as required b section 13 (5-B) of the Ordinance. Two of the respondents, who are present, undertake to vacate and surrender possession of the premises in dispute within one month to enable the appellants to reconstruct them. The sum order will also apply to the third respondent, who is not present today.
4. The appellants will complete the reconstruction of the three shops at the site in a period of four months from the date of the delivery of the possession of the premises to them by the respondents and offer the possession of the newly reconstructed shops to the respective respondents as tenants under them: The Rent Controller will fix the rent of the newly constructed shops accordance with law. Till then the appellants shall not be entitled either t occupy the shops themselves or to lease them out to others. These appeals are allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.