2015 CLC 1014 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Full text

SHER AJMAL VS FAYYAZ RASOOL PLD 1977 Pesh. 80, PLD 2007 Lah. 385, Constitutional petition--TERM , Ejectment of tenants--Term , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13-A , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , Ss. 13, 13-A, 2(c) & 13(5-A)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenants---Landlords filed eviction petitions on the grounds of personal need and reconstruction of the premises---Contention of the tenants was that no notice was served upon them---Petitions were dismissed by the Rent Controller but the same were accepted by the Appellate Court---Validity---Landlords-respondents had purchased the landed property from the previous landlords---Mutations exhibited had established proprietary status of landlords-respondents over the premises---Tenants-petitioners had not challenged the ownership of the landlords-respondents and relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied---Notices under S.13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were issued---Landlord was a person who had the right to receive rent and not necessarily the person who was the owner---Landlords-respondents sent notices for eviction and had obtained approval of structural changes of the premises (shop)---No dispute existed on record between the other tenants of the premises and the landlords with regard to vacation of other shops---Tenants-petitioners had not been able to point out any mala fide on the part of landlord---Nothing was on the record that landlords-respondents wanted to enhance the rate of rent---Under S.13(5) of the Ordinance, penal liability might be imposed when the landlord failed to reconstruct the building in time, such penal provisions were sufficient to safeguard the interest of tenant---Under S.13(5-A), of the Ordinance, the tenants had the right to apply to the Rent Controller for restoration of possession in case landlords failed to reconstruct---Appellate Court handed down detailed findings by discussing each and every issue with reference to the evidence on the record---No prejudice had been shown to have been caused to the tenants-petitioners---Appellate Court had rightly accepted the appeals---Failure to prove the default in payment of rent would not reflect adversely on bona fide personal need---Impugned judgments of the Appellate Court being free from any infirmity were not open to an exception---Constitutional petitions were dismissed.