Shops were located to evict the landlord's personal need for Section 15 tenant Bona, the tenant applicant did not deny the fact that the landlord needed premises premises for his use in opening a day care center. Was not found on her behalf and no misconduct was found on her behalf and the petitioners' response was sustained. The landlord was the sole proprietor of the property of the respondents and the question of substitution for opening of the day care center could not arise. One of the three shops was vacant and till now the other shop was owned by another tenant. ? Landlord respondents needed the entire space to open an ant applicant and day care center that had not yet received permission to open the day care center for the quarter so no good use was established. Yes, the tenant applicants had to prove that the aforesaid landlord was not necessary for the personal use of the landlord which in the present case was not established by the tenant applicant. It was controversial for the landlord to choose one of the many places that was appropriate or could not be banned, until this point the landlord had to meet the respondents. Concerning personal use of good, it was to establish that the landlord really needed it with good faith and that such intention had to be established with the facts found in a matter.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
