Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM FATIMA VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AHSAN
1988 S C M R 1307(2)
1988 S C M R 1307(2)
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, S.A. Nusrat and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD AHSAN‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.145‑R of 1987, decided on 5th October, 1987.
(From the judgment/order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 11‑4‑1987 in F.A.0. No.31 of 1986).
Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.17 & 24‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal need of landlord‑‑Amendment of ejectment application‑‑Effect of‑‑Ejectment application amended subsequently to add ground of personal requirement‑‑Ejectment refused by Rent Controller but decision reversed in appeal‑‑Order impugned‑ Held, since landlord was doing his business in a rented shop from which he was evicted during pendency of proceedings earlier instituted by him on other grounds, landlord was within his right to make choice of his own shop which was on rent with petitioners and was rightly granted permission to amend application so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Abdul Aziz Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th October, 1987.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has beer. sought from judgment dated 11‑4‑19877 of the Peshawar High Court whereby a First Appeal of the respondent/landlord in a rent case, was allowed; and, the petitioners/ tenants were ordered to be evicted under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, on the ground of landlord's requirement.
According to the learned counsel the respondent and his brother (Muhammad Ramzan) were doing joint business in a rented shop. Both of them also owned one shop each, one of which is the suit property. Said Ramzan obtained ejectment of his tenant for joint use of the two brothers. The respondent also sought petitioners' eviction on grounds other than personal requirement. However, he added the ground of personal requirement subsequently without any basis and got his application amended. This, it is further stated, was an after thought and therefore the learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed respondent's application. The reversal of that decision by the High Court in first appeal is unjustified, as it is based on misreading of evidence and non‑consideration of the point about unjustified amendment in the eviction application. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel we have not been able to discover any misreading by the High Court. In any case it is not denied that the respondent was doing his business in a rented shop. He was within his right to make choice of his own shop which was on rent with the petitioners. Moreover. it is not denied that the respondent had been evicted from the rented shop.
In the circumstances of this case the respondent was justified in seeking amendment of his application for eviction so as to include the ground of personal requirement. He, having been evicted from rented shop during the pendency of the proceedings earlier instituted by him on other grounds, was rightly granted permission to amend, so as to avoid multiple proceedings.
In the result, we find no force in this petition. It is dismissed.
The petitioners are allowed two months' time with consent of respondent's learned counsel, on the undertaking to handover vacant possession to the respondent, without execution proceedings.
M.I./G‑98/S Petition dismissed.