The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that a co-owner of a property is legally competent to file an eviction petition against a tenant on behalf of other co-owners, and that it is not necessary for all co-owners to be impleaded as parties to such proceedings.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice 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.
In its judgment, the court observed that internal disputes among co-owners regarding ownership or partition of property cannot be used by tenants as a ground to resist eviction. The court clarified that a co-owner falls within the legal definition of a “landlord” and is 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 is not confined solely to the landlord’s own requirement but also extends 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 is the best judge of his own requirements and has the discretion to determine which property or shop is most suitable for fulfilling those needs.
The Supreme Court concluded that the decisions of the Rent Controller and the 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.
Separately, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that an air crash caused by negligence or a technical malfunction, resulting in loss of life, falls within the category of culpable homicide rather than murder, as such incidents lack the intention or knowledge (mens rea) required for a charge of murder.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad allowed an appeal in a case relating to the 2012 Bhoja Air Flight B4-213 crash and set aside the judgment of the Islamabad High Court.
In its written verdict, the court noted that following the crash of Bhoja Air Flight B4-213 on April 20, 2012, cases were registered at Koral Police Station, Islamabad, under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, including Section 302 (murder).
However, after receiving the challan, the trial court first examined the legal question of whether the allegations constituted murder or culpable homicide. The Supreme Court observed that a conviction under Section 302 requires proof of intention to cause death or knowledge that death would be the certain consequence of the accused’s act.
In contrast, the court explained, Sections 321 and 322 dealing with culpable homicide apply where death occurs without any intention to kill and is instead the result of negligence, recklessness, or an unintentional act.
The judgment further observed that air accidents generally occur due to technical failures, operational negligence, human error, or shortcomings in supervisory systems, and therefore do not ordinarily involve the element of intentional killing.
The court held that the Sessions Judge had correctly assessed the available material and rightly concluded that the case, prima facie, fell within the ambit of culpable homicide rather than murder.
Consequently, the decision to transfer the matter to the competent magistrate was in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court also reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction of a High Court is limited and may only be exercised in cases involving a clear legal error, excess of jurisdiction, or serious procedural irregularity. Since no such defect existed in the trial court’s order, the High Court’s interference was unwarranted.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Islamabad High Court’s judgment, and restored the order of the trial court.