Ch. SHAHBAZ BABAR vs Mrs. REHMANA MIRZA
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Second Appeal from Order and upheld eviction orders passed against him. The core legal question concerns whether a landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant on the grounds of personal requirement when the property is needed for the use of the landlord's husband, specifically in light of the omission of the word 'husband' from the relevant statutory provision. The petitioner contends that the lower courts erred by failing to appreciate that the respondent did not claim the property for her own personal use or the use of her children, but rather for her husband, which is not explicitly covered by the statute. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement on whether eviction orders can be legally sustained for the benefit of a husband given the deliberate omission of that term in the governing legislation. The Court ordered that status quo be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Can a landlord obtain an eviction order on the grounds of personal requirement when the property is needed for the use of her husband?
- Does the omission of the word 'husband' in Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 preclude eviction for the husband's benefit?
- Section 13, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 14-1-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed S.A.O. No,62 of 2001 filed by the petitioner and maintained the earlier orders of eviction passed against him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent lady never claimed the disputed property for her own personal use or the use of her children and the Courts below have rendered the eviction orders totally in violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), without appreciating the evidence of the parties brought on record in its true perspective. To substantiate this stance, learned counsel has made reference to the pleadings of the petition filed under section 13 of the Ordinance by the respondent as well as evidence brought on record by the parties. He has further contended that the respondent lady had nowhere stated that the property under dispute was required for her own use. On the contrary, the evidence in this regard is that the same was required for the independent use of her husband. In support of the above claim he has placed reliance on Mrs. Noor Jehan Bai v. Muhammad Yousaf (2002 SCM R 1933) and Ch. Akbar Hussain v. Mrs. Zehra Bai (2002 SCM R 789).
3. Leave is granted to give an authoritative pronouncement on the point, whether in view of deliberate omission of the word "husband" in section 13 of the Ordinance the eviction orders could be passed for his benefit in the facts of the present case. Let status quo be maintained during the pendency of the appeal emanating out of this petition, which shall be listed for hearing at an early date, being rent matter, subject to soliciting necessary approval of the Honourable Chief Justice.