| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1879 = 1991 CLC 2018 |
Quetta High Court
First Appeal from Order No.101 of 1990, decided on 30th May, 1991
Presented By: Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J
Malik Sultan Mehmood for Appellant. K.N. Kohli for
Respondent.
First Appeal from Order No.101 of 1990, decided on 30th May, 1991
Presented By: Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J
Malik Sultan Mehmood for Appellant. K.N. Kohli for
Respondent.
NASRULLAH Appellant
VERSUS
Mrs. FATIMA BEGUM---Respondent
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.
Section: 2(c) , 13 , 15
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----Ss.2(c) & 13---Word "landlord"---Connotation---Landlord's/Landlady's entitlement to seek ejectment of tenant---Widow on demise of her husband, original landlord, with the consent of other legal heirs had attained status of "landlady"---Ownership of property in question, having been transferred exclusively in the name of one of her sons, widow's status at the best would be that of a landlady, of a category authorised to collect rent on behalf of her son, provided she was authorised to do so in accordance with law---Widow's plea, that her son being minor, she was acting as landlady on his behalf was not borne out by the material on record---Nothing available on record showed that respondent had filed ejectment application on behalf of her minor son---Ejectment application having been filed for reconstruction of building after demolition at the time when no approved plan and building permit was in the name of respondent- --Respondent's son, who owned the property in question, being major, respondent had no entitlement to move ejectment application on his behalf. Muhammad Ali v, Haji Abdur Rehman and others 1980 S C M,R 21 ref. West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-- ---Ss. 13 & 15---Ejectment of tenant for reconstruction after demolition of premises and for benefit of minor---Duty of Rent Controller---Where plea was raised that eviction of tenant 'was sought for benefit of minor, then Rent Controller would be duty bound to examine pleadings in order to find out as to whether actually ejectment was sought for minor's benefit and all legal formalities read been completed i.e. whether the application had been moved in the name of minor through next friend and in pleadings, it had been mentioned unequivocally, that premises was required for reconstruction and personal use and occupation of minor and if such assertions were absent, then Rent Controller normally should not order ejectment of tenant, for if ejectment was allowed same would be against the interest of minor as well as actual owner of the property---Widow…