Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No K‑13 of 1980, decided on 19th February, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 11‑12‑1979 in Second Appeal No. 273 of 1974).
‑‑‑ S. 13(3)(i)(a)‑‑Bona fide personal requirement‑Premises leased out by a person since dead but tenant tendering rent to respondent claim ing to be its owner‑Tenant, in circumstances, held, accepted respondent as his landlord and ejectment application having been filed by respon dent after such acceptance competent.
Fazle Ghani Khan Advocate and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
K. A. Ghani, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 19th February, 1980.
‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 11th of December, 1979, by which Second Appeal No. 273 of 1974, was dismissed.
A Branch Officer of the petitioner company is housed in the disputed premises bearing No. 2I‑D, Block 6, P. E. C. H. S., Karacni. It was leased out in 1968, to the petitioner‑Company by Wing‑Commander Abdul Jabbar Khan at a rental of Rs. 1,500, as an ostensible lessor. It was used by the petitioner company as a business premises although it was residential. In 1970, a dispute arose between the parties as Wing‑Commander Abdul Jabbar Khan gave out that the house was required for the residence of the real owner namely, the respondent, who wanted to occupy it after his retirement. The petitioner‑Company refuted this claim stating it to be a pretext on which the respondent wanted to acquire possession of it. The respondent retired and, thereafter, he built another house in the Defence Housing Society and let it out on rent at Rs. 1,800 p. m. He himself took the job of a Secretary in the Officers Club, Karachi, and stayed in the accommodation provided by the Club. On 4th of October, 1972, the respondent informed the petitioner‑Company for the first time that Wing‑Commander Abdul Jabbar Khan had died and that he required the premises for his personal use which claim was refuted by the reply dated 25th of October, 1972. Thereupon, the respondent filed an ejectment application on 18th of April, 1973, on the same ground. By order dated 20th of July, 1974, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner company which order was upheld in first appeal and the Second Appeal also met the same fate.
During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the petitioner company filed an application on 28th of January, 1979, wherein a prayer was made for producing additional evidence to establish that the respondent had taken a job at Dherki Morri, a subsidiary of Messrs Esso Fertilizer where he had been provided with a "commodious" residential accommodation and further that he had divorced his wife and had no issue. These allegations were intended to rebut the respondent's claim for acquiring the premises in good faith but this application does not find mention in the Judgment of the High Court. It is also not urged at the Bar that this application was brought to the notice of the High Court, which after reviewing the evidence led to establish the plea of the respondent, agreed with the concurrent finding of fact.
It is now urged that the High Court ought to have taken this application into consideration but we fail to see how can such a submission be made if the counsel for the petitioner‑Company himself failed to press it. Again, it was urged that the lessor was the late Wing‑Commander Abdul Jabbar Khan who resided in a separate house before his death and, therefore, the respondent could not seek ejectment on the ground of his personal requirement. This contention is also misconceived as the petitioner‑Company tendered rent to the respondent from January, 1973, onwards and, therefore, it bad accepted the respondent as tire landlord. The ejectment application was filed after the acceptance of the rent and hence the respondent could seek ejectment of the petitioner‑Company for his own personal use.
There is, therefore, no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. However, four months' time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to the payment of rent.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer