MUHAMMAD NOOR-UL-HASSAN vs SAJIDA KHANUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The respondent had initiated proceedings under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking the eviction of the petitioner. Following the acceptance of the ejectment application by the Rent Controller and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioner's appeals, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel requested a one-year period to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court, having considered the duration of the litigation spanning over five years, declined the request for a one-year extension. Instead, the Court dismissed the petition while granting the petitioner a period of three months to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent, provided that rent is paid regularly during this interim period. The Court held that granting an extended period of one year would be improper given the protracted nature of the litigation.
- Whether a tenant can be granted a one-year extension to vacate premises after concurrent findings of ejectment?
- Is it appropriate for the court to grant a shorter period for vacating premises when the litigation has been protracted?
- Section 13, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.-- Facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent had filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance seeking eviction of Muhammad Noor-ul-Hassan, the petitioner. Learned Rent Controller on 13.11.1996, accepted the application and ordered ejectment. The appeal also failed. Thereafter, 2nd appeal against the order of Rent Controller was filed which too was dismissed by a learned Judge in chambers on 18.5.1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case at some length stated that he would be satisfied if at least one year's time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises. We have considered the argument made in the alternate but are of the view that allowing of one year's time would not be proper and just as the parties have been litigating for the past over 5 years. In these circumstances, while dismissing, the petition, we direct that the petitioner shall hand over vacant possession to the respondent within three months without execution proceedings. During this period, rent shall he paid regularly failing which petitioner shall he liable to be evicted forthwith.
Dismissed.