ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has held that under rent laws, the definition of landlord is not limited only to the actual owner but it also includes a person who is authorised to receive rent or a general power of attorney holder.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarat Hilali issued judgment in an appeal filed against the judgment of Peshawar High Court (PHC) related to a dispute over tenancy of a shop in Haripur.
Petitioner Mohammad Ziafat had filed an appeal against the judgment dated July 23, 2025 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench.
The court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the impugned judgment of Peshawar High Court.
The appellant argued that the actual owner of the shop was Tariq Nawaz Khan, but the eviction application had been filed by his attorney, Muhammad Sohail, on the ground of personal need, which according to the appellant was not legally valid.
“There is no bar or restriction under the law that the attorney cannot institute the ejectment proceedings on the ground of bona fide personal need”, says an eight-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
The court clarified that under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, any person who has the right to receive rent or to whom the owner has delegated authority falls within the definition of landlord.
The court held that if a landlord submits an affidavit and, during cross-examination, his statement is proved to be truthful, he is entitled to seek eviction of the premises for his own needs or for the needs of his children.
“By and large, it is an established legal principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be interfered with unless there is a patent illegality, misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or an error of law floating on the surface of the record”, says the judgment.
The court held that the superior courts exercise restraint and are slow to disturb concurrent findings unless exceptional circumstances, illegality, or a jurisdictional error are demonstrated.
Dismissing the tenant’s appeal, the Supreme Court declared the High Court’s decision to be correct and clarified that the attorney, Muhammad Sohail, was fully authorised under the legal powers granted to him to seek eviction of the shop.
The court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any lawful justification for the interference in the concurrent findings recorded by the appellate court and affirmed by the High Court which seem to be strictly in accordance with law.
On the contrary, the impugned judgment divulges that all relevant factors and grounds raised were properly considered and answered by the learned High Court”, says the judgment.
“This court could not go behind concurrent findings of fact unless it can be shown that the finding is on the face of it against the evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice or if there has been any misapplication of the principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible or against the law”, the court further held.
“In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court”, the judgment concluded and dismissed the appeal.
According to the concise facts, the respondent No.1 (Tariq Nawaz Khan Tareen filed an ejectment application through attorney under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (Ordinance) against the petitioner being tenant for the Shop No.1, situated at Old Bus Stand, GT Road, Haripur on the ground of bona fide personal need for his own business.
It was further alleged that at the time of renting out the shop, petitioner/tenant had orally assured that whenever the suit shop will be required by the landlord, he will vacate the same in one month.
The learned Rent Controller settled the issues and after recording evidence, the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2020.
The landlord/respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge-V/Model Civil Appellate Court, Haripur. The appeal was accepted/allowed vide judgment dated 08.07.2020. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner/tenant challenged the appellate judgment by means of writ petition which was dismissed by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment.
