 |
| Eviction of third party with tenant. |
⚖️ لاہور ہائیکورٹ: تیسرے فریق کی ملکیتی دکان کو بے دخلی کے حکم میں شامل نہیں کیا جا سکتا
W.P. No. 1877 of 2026 — Mst. Balqees Begum vs. Additional District Judge, Multan etc.
فیصلہ: 09 جون 2026 | لاہور ہائیکورٹ، ملتان بینچ
🔹 مقدمے کا پس منظر
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مالکان نے نیہال دین کے خلاف دکان نمبر
270/W3 اور
270-A/W3
سے بے دخلی کی درخواست دائر کی تھی، جس پر 20.11.2012 کو بے دخلی کا حکم جاری ہوا۔
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ دورانِ اپیل مسز بلقیس بیگم نے دکان نمبر
270-A/W3
کو اپنی ملکیت قرار دیتے ہوئے فریق بننے کی درخواست دی، جسے منظور کر لیا گیا۔
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اپیلٹ عدالت نے 08.11.2013 کو بلقیس بیگم کی ملکیت تسلیم کرتے ہوئے دکان نمبر
270-A/W3
کو بے دخلی کے حکم سے خارج کر دیا۔
⚖️ عمل درآمد کے دوران تنازع
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ بعد میں مالکان نے بے دخلی کے حتمی حکم پر عمل درآمد کے لیے درخواست دائر کی، جس پر بلقیس بیگم نے اعتراض کیا کہ ان کی ملکیتی دکان بھی قبضے میں لی جا سکتی ہے۔
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ریکارڈ کے مطابق دکان نمبر 270-A/W3
پہلے ہی بے دخلی کے حکم سے خارج ہو چکی تھی، جبکہ عمل درآمد کی درخواست میں صرف دکان نمبر
270/W3
سے نیہال دین کو بے دخل کرنے کی استدعا کی گئی تھی۔
🏛️ ہائیکورٹ کا اہم اصول
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ صرف اس وجہ سے کہ نقشے میں بلقیس بیگم کی دکان بھی موجود ہے، اس دکان کے خلاف بے دخلی کا حکم نافذ نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ نیہال دین کی دکان نمبر
270/W3
سے متعلق بے دخلی کا حکم حتمی ہو چکا ہے، اس لیے کسی تیسرے فریق کے اعتراض کو اس حتمی حکم پر عمل درآمد روکنے کے لیے استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ کرایہ دار قانوناً مالک مکان کے حقِ ملکیت سے انکار نہیں کر سکتا، جب تک وہ کرایہ کی جائیداد کا قبضہ واپس نہ کرے۔ اس اصول کی بنیاد آرٹیکل 115 قانونِ شہادت آرڈر 1984 میں بھی موجود ہے۔
📌 غلط قبضہ ہو جائے تو کیا ہوگا؟
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر مستقبل میں غلطی سے بلقیس بیگم کی ملکیتی جائیداد کا کوئی حصہ بھی قبضے میں لے لیا جائے تو وہ دفعہ 144 ضابطہ دیوانی کے تحت واپسیِ قبضہ کے لیے درخواست دے سکتی ہیں۔
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ضرورت پڑنے پر عمل درآمد کرنے والی عدالت جائیداد کی حد بندی
(Demarcation)
بھی کرا سکتی ہے تاکہ درست جائیداد کی نشاندہی ہو سکے۔
⚖️ حتمی فیصلہ
🔹 ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں میں کوئی غیر قانونی یا دائرۂ اختیار سے تجاوز نہیں ہوا، لہٰذا لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے درخواست خارج کر دی۔
📚 قانونی حوالہ
W.P. No. 1877 of 2026
Mst. Balqees Begum vs. Additional District Judge, Multan etc.
فیصلہ: 09.06.2026
جسٹس مزمل اختر شبیر — لاہور ہائیکورٹ، ملتان بینچ
Must read judgement.
Form No.HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WP No. 1877 of 2026
Mst. Balqees Begum VS. Additional District Judge, Multan etc
S.No. of Order/Proceeding
Date of order/proceeding
Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary
09.06.2026
Mr. Shamshad-ul-Haq Rana, Advocate for petitioner. M/s. Musleh-ud-Din Khan and Malik Muhammad Bakhsh Khaki, Assistant Advocates General, Syed Ali Raza, Mirza Shaharyar Farhan Baig, Muhammad Saeed Bin Noman, Hammad Ajmal Qureshi, Barrister Shahid Masood Khan, Syed Hassan Abbas Raza and Faisal Anwar Minhas Advocates. Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan.
C.M. No. 4434 of 2026
Through this application the petitioner seeks to place on record certified copy of map of the premises subject matter of this petition.
- The application is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.
C.M. No. 01 of 2026
- Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.
Main case
- The petitioner, Mst. Balqees Begum ('petitioner'), has filed the titled petition to call in question order and judgment dated 08.11.2025 and 26.01.2026 ('Impugned orders') passed by the courts below whereby her objection petition to challenge the execution petition filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 for implementation of
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
2
order of ejectment passed against respondent No. 5, Nehal Din, had been concurrently dismissed. It is claimed that the courts below have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and law on the subject while dismissing the objection petition filed by the petitioner. Seeks setting aside of the said order mainly on the ground that respondents No. 3 and 4 in the garb of order of ejectment passed against the respondent No. 5 are trying to take the possession of property owned by the petitioner, which would deprive the petitioner of her valuable rights.
- Brief background of the case is that Respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. Touqeer Ahmad Sheikh and Muhammad Bilal Ahmad Sheikh both sons of Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad, filed an ejectment petition against respondent No. 5 regarding shops No. 270/W3 and 270-A/W3 to the extent of first and second floor, situated at Chowk Barar Hussain Agahi, Multan before the Rent Controller, Multan and obtained ejectment order on 20.11.2012. Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal against the said order and during the pendency of said appeal the present applicant claiming to be the owner of shop No. 270-A/W3 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party to the said petition and it is claimed that in their reply to the application filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, they admitted that shop No. 270-A/W3 has been wrongly included in the ejectment petition and they had no objection if the order is modified to that extent. The said application was accepted and the petitioner was impleaded as a co-appellant in the said appeal vide order dated 20.03.2013. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 08.11.2013 the said appeal to the extent of Respondent No. 5 was dismissed and to the extent of
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
3
the petitioner was allowed with the result that the shop No. 270-A/W3 was excluded from the ejectment order. Thereafter respondent No. 5 challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 14763 of 2013 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2025. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed application for execution of the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal by including the property owned by the petitioner and attaching its map with the ejectment order and obtained warrant dakhal of the property in question and fixed the case for report by the bailiff. This necessitated the filing of objection petition by the petitioner which has concurrently been dismissed by the forums below through the impugned orders, which are under challenge before this Court. The petitioner apprehends that in the garb of the impugned orders, the possession of property belonging to the petitioner shall also be taken away without any legal justification.
- Although ejectment order was passed by the Rent Tribunal relating to the whole property subject matter of the ejectment petition but the said order was modified by the appellate court through its judgment dated 08.11.2013, whereby the property No. 270-A/W3 was excluded. The operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below for clarity:
'6. The judgment of learned ADJ, Multan dated 22.10.1998 is not disputed by both the parties. Learned trial court has relied upon the following part of the judgment which was rendered on the basis of agreement between the parties. The relevant part of the judgment dated 22.10.1998 is reproduced:-
"In case the petitioner does not vacate the shop, then the respondents will be entitled to get possession by filing ejectment petition before learned Rent Controller, because the
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
4
revision petitioners have made no objection by having the decision of respondent No.1, from the Rent Controller by filing copy of this order before Rent Controller".
It is an admitted fact that no appeal was filed against this judgment. Meaning thereby, the appellant was under legal obligation to vacate the shop. As the terms and conditions have been settled between the parties, therefore, the appellant had to follow the same. The trial court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the application for leave to defend of the appellant. Appeal to the extent of appellant Nahaul ud Din is without any substance and the same is dismissed.
Vide order dated 20.03.2013, Balqees Begum daughter of Shahab Din was made co-appellant of this case who had claimed ownership of shop No.270-A. The petitioner in the reply has accepted the claim of Balqees Begum. The appeal to the extent of Balqees, therefore, is accepted. The impugned order is modified and shop No.270/A is excluded from the impugned ejectment order. There is no order as to costs.
- In order to resolve the aforementioned controversy relating to execution having been filed for portion of property excluded by the learned Additional District Judge, the impugned orders passed by the courts below have been perused whereby the objection petition has concurrently been dismissed. The operative portion of the order dated 08.11.2025 passed by the learned trial court is reproduced below for clarity:
"3. As per record, ejectment petition was accepted vide order dated 20.11.2012, against which, appeal was filed by Nihal Din on 23.11.2012, which was dismissed on 08.11.2013. In the said appeal, the present objection petitioner became co-appellant vide order dated 20.03.2013. She claimed ownership of shop No.270/A which was accepted by respondents No.1 & 2, so the impugned ejectment order was modified vide judgment dated 08.11.2013 and said shop No.270-A was excluded from the impugned ejectment
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
5
order. Copy of said order dated 08.11.2013 passed by Mr. Muhammad Saleem, the learned ADJ Multan is available on record and said order has not been challenged by present objection petitioner. When property of present objection petitioner has already been excluded, the decree was modified, same is not to the extent of property of applicant. In absence of any order, no warrant of possession is issued against property of objection petitioner. In view of above, the objection petition is meritless, same is hereby dismissed. Be annexed with main file."
- The operative portion of the order dated 26.01.2026 passed by the learned appellate court is reproduced below for clarity:
"06). Minute scanning of the record reveals that respondents Tauqeer Ahmad Sheikh etc filed ejectment petition against Nahal ud Din which was accepted vide order dated 20-11-2012 which order was also assailed by Nehal Din in the learned Appellate Court and present appellant also became co-appellant vide order dated 20-03-2013 in said appeal but appeal was dismissed on 08-11-2013. There is no dispute over shop No.270-A as respondents No.1 & 2 have already admitted claim of present appellant on the basis of which said shop No.270-A has already be excluded. Order of learned appellate Court dated 08-11-2013 has attained finality as same has not been challenged by present appellant. There is nothing on record to show that warrant of possession of shop of present objection petitioner has been issued when specifically decree was modified by excluding shop No.270-A of appellant.
07). Keeping in view above facts and circumstances this court is of the considered view that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing order dated 08-11-2025, hence, order passed by learned trial Court is upheld and instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. Copy of this order be sent back to the learned trial Court for information and compliance."
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
6
The perusal of the afore-mentioned orders shows
that the property of the petitioner bearing shop No. 270-A/W3 also mentioned as 270-A, which was mentioned by number in the map attached with the ejectment petition has already been excluded by the judgment of the appellate court dated 08.11.2013 and both the forums below were aware of the said fact and through the impugned orders have already held that the property belonging to the petitioner is not included in the subject matter of the execution petition. The contention of the petitioner that the map of the property belonging to the petitioner has also been placed on the record to seek the execution of ejectment order which, according to the petitioner, may cause prejudice to her rights is without substance as the said map also shows adjacent properties, which would be useful for the purposes of pointing out with precision the property under tenancy to the exclusion of other properties mentioned in the said map and cannot be treated as a hurdle against the rights of the petitioner. Besides, it is the same map that was originally attached with the ejectment petition filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 and despite the fact that ejectment order was passed by the Rent Tribunal relating to the entire property including the portion belonging to the petitioner, the said order was modified by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 08.11.2013 and the ejectment order was no longer applicable to the extent of property No. 270-A/W3 belonging to the petitioner. Besides as no new map was attached or filed in the matter despite ejectment order being modified by the judgment of the learned appellate court, therefore, the same map was rightly attached with the execution petition, which was subject to the condition that in terms of judgment dated
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
7
08.11.2013 the order would not be executed against the property owned by the petitioner despite the said map having been attached with their execution petition. This position is further fortified by the prayer of the execution petition filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 wherein only execution of order of eviction of respondent No. 5 from the property No. 270/W3 has been sought and property No. 270-A/W3 has not been mentioned therein, therefore, the objection being raised by the petitioner is without any substance and is based on apprehension only.
-
As already observed above, the ejectment order is neither being executed against the petitioner nor against the property owned by her, still the petitioner has filed objection petition against execution of order of eviction passed in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4 and against respondent No. 5 relating to the property bearing number 270/W3 which is separate from the property number 270-A/W3 owned by her, therefore for all intents and purposes the object of objection petition filed by the petitioner prima facie is not for protection of any of her legal rights rather appears to be to shelter the possession of respondent No. as tenant over the property under tenancy despite eviction order passed against him having attained finality, which is not permissible under the law as the person who is proved to be a tenant of the property cannot unnecessarily endeavour to plead title in a third party to take shelter under it on the basis of technicalities for protection of his possession over property under tenancy. For reaching the said conclusion principles laid down in Muhammad Rafiq and 2 others versus Sabir Ali and 2 others (1995 MLD 178 Lahore) may be referred.
-
Needless to mention that in view of Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, tenant is estopped to
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
8
challenge the title of the landlord without surrendering possession to him. The said principle of statutory law has its origin in the legal maxim "once a tenant, always a tenant" which means a person who enters a property as a tenant cannot later deny the landlord's title or claim ownership simply by staying in the property for a long time for the reason that stay or occupation of the property as a tenant for whatever length of time does not create ownership in the property adverse to its owner and status as tenant does not change without first surrendering the possession of the property to the landlord. Reference may be made to Kalimullah versus Amin Hazin and others (1976 SCMR 77), Naveed Akhtar versus Special Judge (Rent), Sialkot and 2 others (2021 CLC 952 Lahore), Mrs. Azra Riaz versus Additional District Judge and others (2021 CLC 623 Lahore), Mistary Shahid Karim versus Additional District Judge and others (2023 CLC 2140 Lahore), Hakim Khushi Muhammad versus Mst. Talaat Rana and 7 others (2010 CLC 819 Lahore).
- Furthermore, as the tenant cannot take shelter against eviction order by claiming title in a third party relating to the rented premises without first surrendering possession, an objection petition filed by a third party, claiming to have some interest in the suit property cannot be used as a tool to protect the possession of respondent No. 5 as tenant over the property subject matter of this petition for the reason that the ejectment order passed against him has been upheld up to this Court and has attained finality and what the tenant could not be allowed to claim in his defence, cannot be allowed to be claimed by the third party on his behalf based on the principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Reliance may be placed on Mir Abdul Baqi
WP No, 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
9
Baluch versus Government of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretary, Rawalpindi (PLD 1968 SC 313); Muhammad Hanif Abbasi versus Imran Khan Niazi and others (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 189); Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif versus President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473); Malik Shahid Mehmood versus Malik Afzal Mehmood and others (2011 SCMR 551); and Al-Jehad Trust and another versus Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2011 SC 811).
- Another aspect of the matter is that the respondents No. 3 and 4 who are the landlords of the rented premises have waited from 30.07.2012, when the eviction petition was filed till today to get possession of the premises owned by them and the objection petition filed by the petitioner is merely an attempt to prolong the possession of respondent No. 5 over the premises under tenancy by delaying the decision of execution petition, which is not permissible under the law. Reliance may be placed on Messrs Ashraf Agro and others versus H.B.L. (2008 CLD 449 Lahore), wherein it is mentioned as under:-
"10. The appellants have raised frivolous objections, which the learned Executing Court has answered in a lawful manner. The impugned order of Executing Court is devoid of any illegality or legal infirmity. The appellants have filed objections as and when the auction was conducted. The matter regarding sale through auction of the property remained pending for about 8 (eight) years but the appellants have not come forward even on a single occasion to satisfy decretal, amount. There were incentive packages which the State Bank of Pakistan had announced for payment of long outstanding defaults in Bank loans. The appellants have not even availed, the incentives offered to them. The objections are filed to delay execution, which speaks nothing but mala fide of the appellants."
WP No. 1877 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026
10
-
As regard the apprehension of the petitioner that some portion of her property may also be taken possession of in execution proceedings which shall cause prejudice to her rights, in case such an eventuality arises, she may, if advised, file an application for retrieving possession of the same by filing an application for restitution of possession under section 144 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is applicable to the execution proceedings under Rent Laws in terms of principles laid down in Muhammad Bashir Versus Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others (1979 SCMR 260) and if any such application is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law for which purpose if demarcation of property is required, the said mode may also be adopted by the executing court.
-
On the basis of what has been discussed above as no illegality or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out in the impugned orders, whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioner had been concurrently dismissed, there exists no reason for this Court to warrant interference in the impugned orders, which even otherwise are based on proper appreciation of facts of the case and law on the subject, hence cannot be declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect.
-
In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned orders are sustained and this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in the above mentioned terms.
(MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR) JUDGE
Naveed *
APPROVED FOR REPORTING: