| Case ID |
e3785bca-0c79-46d5-9e4b-c664edb1c394 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition No.692-IC of 1998 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 26, 1999 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
In the Supreme Court of Pakistan case ABDUL SAMAD vs Mst. RASHK-EJEHAN and others, Civil Petition No.692-IC of 1998, decided on January 26, 1999, the court addressed the legality of ejecting a tenant under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, XI of 1963. The petitioner sought ejectment from Shop No.6/2, situated at Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, based on the landlord's claimed bona fide personal need for the property. The court examined whether the landlord met the pre-conditions outlined in section 17(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, which requires the landlord to demonstrate that they are not occupying any other suitable premises in the vicinity for business purposes. Despite the landlord's possession of another shop, the court found that the landlord failed to prove that the premises were unsuitable for their needs, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. The judgment reinforced the necessity for landlords to substantiate their claims of personal need and comply with legal requirements, thereby protecting tenant rights while ensuring landlords adhere to prescribed legal standards for property eviction. |
| Summary |
In the landmark Supreme Court of Pakistan decision, ABDUL SAMAD vs Mst. RASHK-EJEHAN and others, Civil Petition No.692-IC of 1998, adjudicated on January 26, 1999, the judiciary meticulously evaluated the intricacies of tenant-landlord relationships under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, XI of 1963. The petitioner, ABDUL SAMAD, sought the ejectment of Mst. RASHK-EJEHAN from Shop No.6/2 located in Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. Central to the case was the interpretation and application of section 17(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, which predicates the landlord's right to evict a tenant on proving a bona fide personal need for the property. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the landlord had complied with the requisite legal standards, particularly the obligation to demonstrate non-occupancy of any other suitable premises in the vicinity for business purposes.
The decision unfolded against a backdrop of precedential cases such as Sheikh Muhammad Ayaz v Malik Ishtiaq and Chaudhary Nazir Ahmad v. Mrs. Mariam Salauddin Khawaja, which underscored the judicial emphasis on landlords substantiating their claims beyond mere assertions. In this instance, despite the landlord's possession of another shop in Khayaban-e-Shamshir, Phase-V, the court found that the petitioner failed to conclusively demonstrate that the existing premises met the landlord's bona fide needs. The High Court's prior decision to grant ejectment was upheld, affirming that the landlord had not effectively discharged the burden of proof required under the Rent Restriction Act.
Furthermore, the court delved into the semantic interpretation of key legal phrases, referencing the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to delineate the scope of 'building' as used in the relevant sections. The judgment clarified that 'building' refers exclusively to premises owned by the landlord, not rented properties, thereby narrowing the landlord's scope for claiming personal need. This legal reasoning fortified the tenant's position, ensuring that eviction could not be pursued without stringent compliance with statutory mandates.
The comprehensive judgment not only reinforced the protective framework for tenants under rent restriction laws but also delineated clear guidelines for landlords seeking eviction based on personal necessity. By mandating rigorous proof of bona fide need and adherence to legal pre-conditions, the Supreme Court ensured a balanced approach to property disputes, safeguarding the interests of both parties. This case serves as a vital reference for future litigations involving rent restrictions and tenant rights, highlighting the judiciary's role in upholding equitable standards within the real estate domain.
In essence, ABDUL SAMAD vs Mst. RASHK-EJEHAN and others epitomizes the judicial prudence exercised in interpreting and enforcing rent restriction laws, promoting fairness and legal integrity in tenant-landlord engagements. The decision underscores the imperative for landlords to provide concrete evidence of personal need, thereby preventing arbitrary evictions and fostering a lawful and just housing environment. This case remains a cornerstone in Pakistani legal discourse, influencing the adjudication of similar cases and contributing to the evolution of rental legislation and tenant protections in the region. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Clifton Cantonment,
Defence Housing Authority, Karachi
|
| Judges |
AJMAL MIAN, C.J.,
MAMOON KAZI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Amjad Hussain,
Syed Ansar Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL SAMAD
|
| Respondents |
Mst. RASHK-EJEHAN and others
|
| Citations |
1999 SLD 395,
1999 SCMR 1353
|
| Other Citations |
Sheikh Muhammad Ayaz v Malik Ishtiaq 1996 SCMR 19,
Chaudhary Nazir Ahmad v. Mrs. Mariam Salauddin Khawaja PLD 1994 Lah. 252,
Abdul Aziz v. Muhammad Ibrahim PLD 1977 SC 442,
Abdul Salam v. Dr. Najam Parvez 1976 SCMR 52
|
| Laws Involved |
Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, XI of 1963,
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
|
| Sections |
17(4)(b)(ii),
13(3)(a)(ii)(b)
|