| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3090 2026 SLG 3089 = 2026 SCP 164 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition Nos.300-Q, 303-Q to 312-Q of 2025 (Against the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in FAOs No.33 to 43/2025)
Presented By: Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, CJ Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Shah, ASC
Civil Petition Nos.300-Q, 303-Q to 312-Q of 2025 (Against the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in FAOs No.33 to 43/2025)
Presented By: Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, CJ Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Shah, ASC
Najeebullah (in CPLA No.300-Q/ 2025) Haji Hussain Ali (in CPLA No.303-Q/ 2025) Abdul Hakeem (in CPLA No.304-Q/ 2025) Kaleemullah and others (in CPLA No.305-Q/ 2025) Abdul Jabbar (in CPLA No.306-Q/ 2025) Nouroz Ali (in CPLA No.307-Q/2025) Abbas Ali (in CPLA No.308-Q/2025) Ehsan Ali (in CPLA No.309-Q/ 2025) Ehsan Ali and others (in CPLA No.310-Q/2025) Hussain Ali (in CPLA No.311-Q & 312-Q/ 2025) ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Syed Shams-ud-Din and others ...Respondent
Law: Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
Section: 2(c),13
Summary The Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging eviction orders for shops in Gul Plaza, Quetta, upholding the Rent Controller and High Court findings that Respondent No.1 (a co-sharer) proved ownership and bona fide need; the Court held a co-owner can sue alone, evidence (sale deed, rent receipts, statements) supported personal/ family need, and concurrent findings were not perverse, so leave to appeal was refused. Core points Petitioners challenged eviction of 15 shops granted to Respondent No.1 by Rent Controller and affirmed by High Court. Respondent produced registered sale deed and rent receipts to establish title and landlord-tenant relationship. Petitioners argued ownership was disputed (benami/unpartitioned) and Respondent lacked authority; Court held internal co-owner disputes do not defeat eviction and a single co-owner may file suit. Eviction was allowed on ground of personal bona fide need; Respondent’s attorney and witnesses gave consistent, unshaken testimony. Court noted bona fide need may extend to landlord’s family/co-sharers and their children. Allegation that other shops were vacated to re-lease at higher rates was rejected; landlord is best judge of his requirement. Concurrent findings of lower fora were upheld as not perverse, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitions dismissed; leave to appeal refused. Law and Section Law / Statute Section Short text of provision (concise) Relevance in this case Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 2(c) Defines “landlord” (includes co-owners) Confirms a co-sharer qualifies as landlord and may institute eviction proceedings alone. Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 13 Ground of eviction for personal bona fide need (and for landlord’s family) Authorizes eviction where landlord (or family/co-sharers) requires tenement for bona fide personal use; applied to allow eviction of shops. Pakistan Supreme Court (precedent) — Amin & others v Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad PLD 2006 SC 549 Principle: internal dispute among co-owners does not defeat landlord status Supports holding that partition/benami dispute does not bar co-owner from suing for eviction.…