ISHFAQ AHMED vs MUSHTAQ AHMED S — 2025 PLD 582 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ISHFAQ AHMED VS MUSHTAQ AHMED S. 19---Ejectment of tenant---Striking off defence---Petitioner/ landlord was aggrieved of judgment passed by High Court setting aside eviction order passed against respondent/tenant to vacate rented premises---Validity---Oral testimonies and documentary evidence produced by petitioner/landlord remained unchallenged, as right of respondent/tenant to cross-examine petitioner's/landlord's witnesses was struck off and that order attained finality, having remained unchallenged by respondent/tenant---In absence of any rebuttal or cross-examination, evidence led by petitioner/landlord stood uncontro-verted---Material on record conclusively established that petitioner/ landlord was lawful owner of the property---Rent proceedings, by their very nature, are summary in character and are intended to ensure swift and efficient resolution of landlord-tenant disputes, particularly in cases of default, so as to safeguard landlord's Constitutionally protected right to property---Petitioner/landlord remained embroiled in litigation for over seven years merely to recover possession of his property---Course of delay ran counter to the foundational objectives of rent legislation and summary adjudication---Such undue delays not only eroded Constitutional rights of property owners but had also given rise to broader economic and social justice concerns---For landlords, prolonged litigation entails financial strain, loss of rental income, and an inability to utilize their property for productive purposes, which can hinder economic growth---Conversely, tenants facing eviction proceedings often live in uncertainty, which can affect their social and economic stability---A just legal system must, therefore, ensure an equitable balance between rights of landlords and tenants, a balance that is fundamentally disrupted when cases are permitted to stagnate in judicial pipeline---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court and restored that of Lower Appellate Court, which had rightly upheld the claim of petitioner/landlord---Supreme Court directed respondent/tenant to vacate property in question within two months---Appeal was allowed.

ISHFAQ AHMED vs MUSHTAQ AHMED S — 2025 PLD 582 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD