ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a co-owner of a property was legally competent to file an eviction petition against a tenant on behalf of other co-owners.
A two-member bench — comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi — delivered the judgment in a tenancy dispute concerning shops located in Gul Plaza, Hotel Pakeeza, Quetta, and dismissed the tenants’ petitions seeking leave to appeal.
The court observed that internal disputes among co-owners regarding ownership or partition of a property could not be used by tenants as a ground to resist eviction.
The court clarified that a co-owner fell within the legal definition of a “landlord” and was entitled to initiate eviction proceedings while representing the interests of other co-owners.
According to the judgment, Syed Shamsuddin had filed eviction petitions against tenants occupying several shops situated in Gul Plaza, Hotel Pakeeza, on Abdul Sattar Road, Quetta.
The rent controller had allowed the petitions on the ground of bona fide personal need and directed the tenants to vacate the premises, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Balochistan High Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the registered sale deed and rent receipts available on record sufficiently established the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
The court further held that bona fide personal need was not confined solely to the landlord’s own requirement but also extended to the legitimate business needs of his children, family members and other co-owners.
The court also rejected the tenants’ contention that some shops previously vacated on the basis of personal need had later been rented out again.
The judgment stated that a landlord was the best judge of his own requirements and had the discretion to determine which property or shop was most suitable for fulfilling those needs.
The court concluded that the decisions of the rent controller and Balochistan High Court were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of the law.
It found no element of mala fide intent, illegality or misreading of evidence that would justify interference.
Accordingly, the court dismissed all petitions and declined to grant leave to appeal.
