Ejectment by legal heir |The claim of the tenant is the owner. The Supreme Court granted the eviction petition on the ground of non-appearance and delay of the tenant and ordered to vacate the property, as the tenant's claim of ownership was not recognized before the judgment of the court, Lahza dismissed the appeal. 2024 S C M R 452

نادیہ علی بٹ کو 17 اکتوبر 2020 کو ایک عدالت نے وارث کے طور پر اس لئے تسلیم کیا تھا کہ وہ جائیداد کے مالک کے قانونی وارث کے طور پر پہچانی گئیں۔ مالک کی وفات کے بعد، عدالت نے اس کے وارثوں کی تعیین کی اور نادیہ علی بٹ کو ان میں شامل کیا۔ اس قانونی فیصلے کے بعد، نادیہ علی بٹ نے کرایہ دار (ناصر خان) کے خلاف کرایہ داری کے قوانین کے تحت بے دخلی کی درخواست دائر کی، کیونکہ وہ اب جائیداد کی مالک تھیں۔

The claim of the tenant is the owner.
The Supreme Court granted the eviction petition on the ground of non-appearance and delay of the tenant and ordered to vacate the property, as the tenant's claim of ownership was not recognized before the judgment of the court, Lahza dismissed the appeal.
2024 S C M R 452

اس فیصلے کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. اسلام آباد کرایہ داری آرڈیننس (2001) کے تحت ایجیکٹمنٹ درخواست: درخواست گزار (مستاجیر) کے خلاف کرایہ داری کیس میں فیصلہ کرتے ہوئے عدالت نے یہ قرار دیا کہ اگر کرایہ دار صرف یہ دعویٰ کرتا ہے کہ وہ جائیداد کا مالک ہے اور اس نے اس سلسلے میں درخواست دائر کی ہے، تو وہ کرایہ داری کے قانونی تعلق کو مسترد نہیں کر سکتا جب تک کہ عدالت اس کی ملکیت کا فیصلہ نہ کرے۔ اس معاملے میں، کرایہ دار کی ملکیت کے دعوے کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے کرایہ داری کے حوالے سے درخواست گزار (مالکن) کے حق میں فیصلہ کیا گیا۔

2. ایکس پارٹ فیصلے: جب کرایہ دار نے بار بار عدالت میں پیش ہونے سے انکار کیا اور جان بوجھ کر کارروائی میں تاخیر کی، تو عدالت نے اس کے خلاف ایکس پارٹ کارروائی کی اجازت دی۔ اس کے باوجود کہ کرایہ دار کو متعدد طریقوں سے سمن جاری کیے گئے، وہ ان کارروائیوں میں شریک نہیں ہوا۔ اس بنیاد پر عدالت نے ایکس پارٹ فیصلہ کیا اور کرایہ دار کو جائیداد خالی کرنے کا حکم دیا۔

3. دیر سے درخواست: کرایہ دار کی جانب سے تاخیر سے درخواست دائر کی گئی اور اس نے کسی معقول وجہ کے بغیر اس بات کی وضاحت نہیں کی کہ کیوں وہ کرایہ داری مقدمہ میں شامل نہیں ہوا۔ اس طرح کی تاخیر اور غیر حاضری عدالت کی جانب سے اس کے خلاف فیصلہ سنانے کا جواز فراہم کرتی ہے۔

فیصلہ یہ تھا کہ کرایہ دار کو جائیداد سے نکالنے کی درخواست درست تھی اور اس کے خلاف درخواست کے بارے میں اپیل مسترد کر دی گئی۔

2024 S C M R 452

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

NASIR KHAN---Petitioner

Versus

NADIA ALI BUTT and others---Respondents

Civil Petition No. 2885 of 2022, decided on 8th November, 2023.

(Against the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in W.P No. 2086 of 2022)

(a) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001)---

----S. 2(g)---Ejectment petition---Landlady, status of---Suit for declaration filed by tenant to prolong his possession over the property---At the time of filing of ejectment petition on 22.04.2021 against the petitioner (tenant), the respondent was the 'landlady' within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance), because a court of competent jurisdiction on 17.10.2020, had declared her and another lady to be the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the property---Whereas person "A" (paternal uncle of deceased owner) had also obtained judgment and decree dated 02.06.2021 in respect of legal heirship of deceased owner and allegedly entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner (tenant) solely and exclusively in respect of the demised premises on 04.12.2020---Thus the suit for the specific performance filed by the petitioner (tenant) against person "A" on 05.05.2021 was later in time than the rent case filed by the respondent (landlady)---Person cannot remain in occupation of rented premises simply because he asserts to be the owner of the rented premises and has instituted a suit for declaration in this regard---Tenant remains a tenant; he cannot prolong his occupation by exercising his right of being subsequent purchaser unless so held by the court of competent jurisdiction---In the present case the Rent Controller was fully justified in allowing the ejectment petition and directing the petitioner to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Shaikh and others PLD 2014 SC 347 and Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064 ref.

(b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001)---

----S. 25(3)---Ejectment petition---Ex-parte proceedings against tenant---Tenant deliberately delaying proceedings by not appearing before the Rent Tribunal---Eviction petition was instituted on 22.04.2021 and summons were issued to the petitioner (tenant) for appearance on 30.04.2021, however, despite receipt thereof by the petitioner's brother, the petitioner was (also) duly served through alternate mode by way of publication in the newspaper and its affixation---Despite of that the petitioner failed to appear before the Rent Controller---Before passing ex-parte order, proceedings were adjourned on five consecutive dates i.e. 07.05.2021, 25.05.2021, 03.06.2021, 09.06.2021 and 16.06.2021 but the petitioner failed to ensure his appearance---On 21.06.2021, ex-parte proceedings were initiated whereby the evidence produced by the respondent (landlady) was recorded---After recording of the evidence, the petitioner made an application before the Rent Controller for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, however, he was unable to justify why he failed to contest the rent case and how he got knowledge if the summons were not duly served upon him---Deliberate disappearance by the petitioner in the rent case, prima facie, spoke volumes about his intention to prolong/delay the rent proceedings---Thus, the Rent Controller was fully justified in allowing the ejectment petition and directing the petitioner to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Imtiaz Ahmed Kayani, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.