2021 CLC 1405 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

MOHAMMAD AKRAM BHATTI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK S.19---eviction petition---Co-owner---Scope---Co-owner seeking eviction---Oral tenancy, expiry of---Scope---Petitioner assailed the concurrent dismissal of his ejectment petition---Validity---Special Judge (Rent), after observing that the petitioner was a co-owner had fallen in error in assuming that he could not maintain an eviction application---Every co-owner was entitled to receive rent of the premises as landlord and if one co-owner had not let out the property, but some other co-owner or the person entitled to receive rent had, then by legal fiction every co-owner of the property would be deemed to be landlord and competent to maintain ejectment application on any ground available to him under the law and even without joining other co-owners as applicants, if the ground of ejectment was otherwise available---Tenant could not be permitted to escape eviction simply because one of the co-owners had come to his rescue to save him from default, if other grounds were available---eviction petition, in the present case, was filed on the ground of default and expiry of tenancy---Tenancy being oral and month to month had expired---Filing of eviction petition was a notice of eviction and, resultantly, the petitioner was entitled to eviction of tenant on the ground of expiry of the tenancy---View taken by Special Judge (Rent) as also by the District Judge being based on incorrect assumption of law was, as such, legally untenable and the findings were inconsequence declared to be without lawful authority---Constitutional petition was allowed and the tenant was directed to vacate the rented premises.