Amanullah and others Vs Hamad Ali etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Writ Petition No.182-D of 2026 (Out of Civil Revision No.65-D/2026)

Amanullah and others Versus Hamad Ali

For petitioner: Mr. Saddam Hussain Zakori Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Abdul Qayyum Qureshi Advocate Date of hearing 08.07.2026

JUDGMENT

SADIQ ALI, J.- The petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII, D.I.Khan, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, maintaining the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2025 of the learned Rent Controller, which had dismissed their ejectment petition.

2.At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned courts below are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He requested for the conversion of the instant Civil Revision into a Writ Petition and also sought impleadment of both the lower forums as respondents.

3.The Courts are sanctuaries of justice, and in exercise of authority to do ex debito justitiae, that is to say remedy a wrong and to suppress a mischief to which a litigant is entitled. No fetters or bar could be placed on the High Court to convert and treat one type of proceeding into another type and proceed to decide the matter either itself provided it has jurisdiction over the lis before it in exercise of another jurisdiction vested in the very court or may remit the lis to the competent authority/forum or court for decision on merits. This court has ample powers to convert a writ petition into a civil revision petition and vice versa if the interests of justice so demand. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down in the cases of “Muhammad Ayub vs.

Obaidullah” (1999 SCMR 394), “Muhammad Akram Vs. DCO, Rahim Yar Khan and others” (2017 SCMR 56), “Mian Asghar Ali Vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary (Colonies) BOR, Lahore and others” (2017 SCMR 118), “Sher Alam Khan Vs. Abdul Munim and others” (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 449),

and “Chaudhry Muhammad Khan and another Vs. Civil Judge, 1st Class (East) Islamabad and another” (2018 CLC 1505).

4.Since there appear jurisdictional error, as discussed below, in the findings of the courts below, therefore, the request for conversion of the civil revision into writ petition deemed reasonable also the impugned orders legally amenable to writ jurisdiction, thus instant Civil Revision is hereby converted into Writ Petition. The Office is directed to make the necessary entries in the relevant registers accordingly. Upon the oral request of the learned counsel, both the learned courts below are impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3.

5.Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Aman Ullah (now deceased), along with petitioners No.2 and 3, filed an ejectment petition against the respondent-tenant Hamad Ali for eviction from commercial property comprising a shop and basement located at Aman Plaza, Mohalla Mujahid Nagar, D.I.Khan. Eviction was sought inter alia on the grounds of default in payment of rent, causing structural damage, and personal bona-fide need. The respondent contested the petition by filing written reply. After a full trial and a subsequent remand, the learned Rent Controller

dismissed the petition vide judgment & decree dated 07.10.2025, and the Appellate Court maintained the dismissal vide judgment & decree dated 06.01.2026, primarily on the grounds that the personal need of the original landlord did not survive his death and that a procedural lapse existed regarding the non-mentioning of personal need in the initial affidavits. Hence, this petition.

6.Arguments of the learned counsel representing parties have been heard and the available record perused with their able assistance.

7.The primary questions for determination before this Court are whether the bona fide personal need of a landlord survives through his legal heirs upon his death, and whether omitting to mention the personal need in an affidavit can be cured during the recording of evidence.

8.Dealing with the first proposition, both the learned courts below fell into a grave legal error by holding that the ground of personal bona fide need stood extinguished with the demise of original landlord Aman Ullah. It is a settled principle of law that the right to seek eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need, being a heritable right tied to ownership, survives the death of the landlord and is squarely

passed onto his legal heirs. The legal heirs step into the shoes of the deceased landlord, and his plea of bona-fide need remains fully alive through them. Restricting this need solely to the original petitioner while ignoring the rights of the surviving legal heirs and co-owners is a perverse misapplication of the law. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the cases of Najeebullah and others Vs. Syed Shams- ud-Din and others (2026 SCP 164), Salahuddin Ahmad Vs.

Khurram Sultan Abbasi (2025 SCMR 1691), Muhammad Hayat Vs. Muhammad Miskeen (decd.) through legal heirs and others (2018 SCMR 1441), Ferozuddin and another Vs.

Additional District Judge, Karachi East and another (2012 SCRM 1679) and Karachi Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Muhammad Yousuf (2002 SCMR 680).

9.Moreover with regard to the nature of personal use, it is well-settled that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and guidance in this context has been derived from the cases of Dr. Hassan Fatima Vs. Pakistan Red crescent Society and others (2026 SCP 132), Muhammad Ziafat Vs.

Tariq Nawaz Khan and others (2026 SCP 41), Juma Sher Vs.

Shabz Ali (1997 SCMR 162) and Jehangir Rustam Khakalia through Legal Heirs vs. Messrs Hashwani Sales & Services (Pvt.) Limited (2002 SCMR 241).

10.With regard to the procedural objection that the plea of bona fide need was missing in the initial affidavit, it is observed that the submission of affidavits along with eviction petitions is merely directory in nature and not mandatory.

Any procedural shortfall or omission in the initial affidavit can validly be covered and cured in the subsequent statement recorded before the Court. Reliance placed on cases of “Ch.

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam Naz Vs. Special Judge (Rent), Multan and another” (2011 CLC 1503), and “Muhammad Yaqoob through Legal Heirs Vs. Sh. Muhammad Anwar through Legal Heirs” (PLD 2011 Lahore 446).

11.In the instant case, the Special Power of Attorney holder for the petitioners (AAW-1) categorically stated in his statement before the Court that the premises are required to landlords for personal bona fide need. This substantive statement sufficiently filled any procedural lapse particularly when the same was not cross-examined. Both the courts below has misread this pivotal evidentiary aspect of the case.

It is no well-settled that if the concurrent findings recorded by the lower fora are found to be in violation of law or based on flagrant and obvious defect floating on the surface of record, then it cannot be treated as being so sacrosanct or sanctified that it cannot be reversed by the High Court in the

Constitutional jurisdiction vested in it by Article 199 of the Constitution. Guidance in this regard can be derived from the case of “United Bank Limited (UBL) through its President and others Vs. Jamil Ahmed and others” (2024 SCMR 164).

12.Both the learned forums below completely misdirected themselves and failed to comprehend the heritable nature of a landlord’s personal need as well as the directory nature of procedural affidavits. The findings arrived at by both courts are arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

13.Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 06.01.2026 of the learned Appellate Court/ADJ-VIII, D.I.Khan, and the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2025 of the learned Rent Controller, D.I.Khan, are hereby set aside. The rent/ejectment petition of the petitioners stands decreed on the basis of personal bona- fide need. The respondent/tenant is directed to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the petitioners within a period of thirty (30) days from today.

Announced.

(*M/Subhan) Sd/

JUDGE

(S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Ali