Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal No. 383 of 1976, decided on 4th April 1977.

‑‑‑‑‑ S. 15(4) read with S. 13‑Finding of two Courts below that landlord required premises bona fide for his personal use found to be wholly unjustified‑Orders of Rent Controller and District Judge directing ejectment of tenant set aside.

Zahiruddin Khan for Appellants.

Muhammad Anisur Rehman for Respondent.

Date of heating : 4th April 1977.

The respondent‑landlord sought the eviction of the appellants on the ground that the shop premises is their occupation was reasonably and bona fide required by him for his personal use, namely, to open a grocery shop. Both the Courts below have accepted this plea and granted the eviction in terms prayed for.

2. Mr. Zahiruddin Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the law requires the landlord to prove not only that he reasonably requires the premises for his personal use but that he bona fides so requires the premises and that bona fide was clearly lacking in this case. The lack of bona fides, the learned counsel argued was apparent from the fact that the landlord gave a notice dated 10‑1‑1975 in which he demanded enhanced rent at Rs. 100 per month instead of the agreed rent of Rs. 50 per month. The eviction application was filed in June 1975 and even prior thereto when money order was sent to the landlord for payment of rent at Rs. 50 per month it was, according to the landlord's own deposition in his cross‑examination, refused by him because the appellants had refused to increase the rent and further that on the failure of the appellant either to pay the enhanced rent or to vacate the shop the eviction application was filed. This notice and the statement by landlord was more than adequate to demolish any bona fides on the part of the landlord. The Rent Controller refused to examine this aspect of the case for according to him bona fides follow the reasonable requirement which had been proved by the landlord. The First Appellate Court without even referring to this evidence care to the conclusion that tile demand for enhanced rent had not been proved and that the alleged demand for higher rent cannot coat any doubt on the personal A bona fide requirements. In view of the evidence referred to above the finding of the two Courts below that the landlord required the promises bona fide for his personal use was wholly unjustified.

3. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order of the II Additional District Judge, Jacobabad dated 16‑10‑1976 and the Rent Controller, Jacobabad, dated 18‑3‑1976 are set aside. The appellants will be entitled to costs of the proceedings throughout.

S. Q. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.