MUHAMMAD HAROON vs GHULAM MUSTAFA
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's second appeal against concurrent orders of ejectment from a commercial shop. The core legal question concerns whether the landlord's requirement for the demolition and reconstruction of the shop by amalgamating it with an adjoining property was reasonable and bona fide, or merely a device to extract higher rent. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord were unexceptionable, noting that subsequent developments—namely, the vacation of the adjoining shop—corroborated the landlord's genuine intention to reconstruct, and that statutory safeguards under the relevant rent restriction law adequately protect tenants against dishonest devices. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent judgments of ejectment.
- Whether a landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction of a rented premises is reasonable and bona fide when involving amalgamation with an adjoining property?
- Do subsections (5) and (5-A) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 provide sufficient safeguards against dishonest ejectment devices by landlords?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the District Judge regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement be interfered with in second appeal?
- Section 13(5), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 13(5-A), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.--This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learre3 Judge of the Peshawar High Court on the 10th of January 1978, by which the second appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of his ejectment from the shop in dispute was dismissed in limine.
2. In the application filed on the 23rd of September 1975, by the respondent landlord, it was averred Mat he wanted to demolish the shop in Question, and to reconstruct it after amalgamating the same with the adjoining shop of his uncle Ghulam Nabi. He also stated that he had obtained the necessary sanction from the Municipal Committee Mansehra for this purpose. The application was accepted by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated the 31st of May 1977. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mansehra on 2-10-1977. The concurrent findings of both these Courts have been upheld by the High Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the requirement of the respondent was neither reasonable nor bona-fide, as the application filed by his uncle Ghulam Nabi for the ejectment of his tenant was deliberately allowed to remain pending in the Court of the Rent Controller, and one day after the order of the High Court in the present case. Ghulam Nabi entered into a compromise with his tenant, permitting him a period of one year to vacate the shop. It appears to the learned counsel that this circumstance clearly showed that the respondent had merely resorted to a device to pressurize the petitioner to pay higher rent, as the petitioner was in a tight corner, having constructed six hamams on the premises in dispute. The learned counsel further contends that in any case the Courts below have erred in thinking that the requirement must be regarded as reasonable and bona fide simply because the respondent had obtained the sanction of the Municipal Committee concerned for the reconstruction of the new building.
4. We regret we see no merits in these submissions. All the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondent reasonably and bona fide intended to demolish the existing shop and reconstruct the same by amalgamating his own shop with that of his uncle Ghulam Nabi. It was asserted by the respondent that his uncle Ghulam Nabi had also filed a ejectment petition against his tenant. On the submission made on behalf of the petitioner it becomes clear that Ghulam Nabi's ejectment application against his tenant has also succeeded in the sense that the tenant has agreed to vacate the premises within one year. In the circumstances it is not possible to hold that the respondent had merely adopted a device to pressurize the present petitioner to pay higher rent for the shop in dispute. The learned Judge in the High Court has rightly remarked that the provisions of subsections (5) and (5-A) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 provide sufficient safeguards against the adoption of any dishonest device by a landlord in asses of the present kind.
5. Accordingly, we see no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.