Co-owner can seek tenant’s eviction on behalf of other owners without impleading all co-owners: SC

ISLAMABAD, (APP - UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 9th Jun, 2026) 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.

<?php /*?> <?php */?>

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.