Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. K‑81 of 1977, decided on 8th August, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated II‑2‑1977, passed in If Appeal No. 326 of 1976).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑

‑‑ S. 13 (3) (a)‑Ejectment‑Requirement for personal use‑All important points duly noticed by High Court‑Concurrent finding of fact on question of bona fide requirement of landlord not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise‑Even otherwise landlord having a family of 12 members, some children being either of marriageable age or studying in higher educational institutions, need of family regarding suitable accommodation not able to be met with existing accommodation‑Incident of landlord's dog having been involved having no effect on concurrent finding of fact regarding objective needs of landlord and such incident irrelevant‑Landlord's omission to men tion fact of her requirement of house for personal need in her notice sent to tenant inconsequential due to landlord's husband having been making verbal requests in such behalf and tenant having promised from time to time to vacate premises‑No legal requirement, for landlord to have examined her children in support of case‑Evidence, held, enough to prove bona fide requirement of landlord.

A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 7th August 1979.

This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the dismissal of second appeal by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind whereby the order of eviction of the petitioner on ground of personal requirement of the respondent passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the first appellate Court was ultimately upheld.

The respondent had instituted the eviction application on grounds of her bona fide requirement ; the petitioner's conduct being nuisance for her family ; and that the petitioner was a rent defaulter. The last mentioned two points were not pressed during the proceedings. On the first point the learned lower appellate Courts and the Controller have found that the requirement of the respondent was bona fide.

The learned counsel has reiterated the same arguments which were advanced before the High Court. He has argued that the respondent had a two‑room accommodation in her husband's family house and that she has also sufficient accommodation in a portion of the property in dispute, therefore, she does not bona fidely require the accommodation 1n petitioner's occupation ; that the respondent having purchased the property in dispute in November, 1‑469, had served the petitioner with a notice . (Presumably under section 13(A) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance) but she had not mentioned therein that she required it for her personal use; that the respondent did not move for the eviction of the petitioner after the purchase of the house for nearly three years and further that the application when filed was motivated by an unfortunate incident in which the respondent's dog had attacked the mother‑in‑law of the petitioner's son ; that the existing accommodation with the respondent which consists of nearly five living rooms is suitable for her requirement ; that even if the respondent's children are of marriageable age and some of them are studying in university, college and school, this circumstance is not relevant to the question of the bona fide requirement of the respondent ; and, lastly that the respondent did not examine any of her children as a witness.

All the important points raised by the learned counsel were having been duly noticed by the High Court, the concurrent finding of fact on the question of bona fide requirement of the respondent does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. According to the evidence the respondent has a family of 12 members including children some of whom are' of marriageable age and the others are studying in higher educational institu tions. The needs of her family regarding suitable accommodation for all the members thereof cannot be met with the existing accommodation with her. She has no control over the two rooms which are allegally available to her in the house jointly owned by her husband's family members. The incident in which the respondent's dog was involved even if established to have preceded the filing of the eviction application, would not affect the concurrent findings of fact regarding the objective needs of the respondent. The respondent's omission to mention in her notice sent to the petitioner the fact that she would require the house for her personal needs, is inconse-sequential, because as mentioned in the impugned order, her husband had been making verbal requests to the petitioner in this behalf and the latter had promised from time to time to vacate the premises. This part of the respondent's case has not been disbelieved. There was no legal requirement c for the respondent to have examined her children in support of her case. The evidence led from her side was enough to prove her bona fides. There is no force in say of the contentions raised by the learned counsel. This petition, is, accordingly, dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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