Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No. 846 of 1976, decided on 18th April, 1978. .

‑‑ S. 13(3) (a) (ii) (a) & (b) ‑ Ejectment ‑ Expression "suitable for his own needs"‑Suitability‑May‑be expressed by words or inferred from circumstances existing on record‑Appellant landlord occupying" rented premises and gaining time by showing his willingness to enhance rent‑Avoidance of such occasion by occupying his own shop held, by itself amounts to suitability.‑[Words and phrases].

Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Parvez 1976 S C M R 52 ref.

‑‑ S. 13(3) (a) (ii) (a) & (b)‑Ejectment‑Words a "not occupying" used with reference to premises owned by landlord‑Residential or non‑residential building can be claimed by landlord at least for his own need.‑[Words and phrases).

‑‑ S. 13(3) (a) (ii) (a) & (b) ‑ Ejectment ‑ Landlord bona fidely anxious to occupy his own shop so as to avoid payment of rent regularly, keeping property in fit condition to satisfaction of his own restraint from making alterations suitable to his business and refraining from expanding career by joining in business a financier or a partner etc.‑Evasion of such impediments, held, a bona fide suitability which always existed when landlord occupied a rented shop.

Khan Khalil‑ ur‑Rahman Khan for Appellant.

Muhammad Nawaz Kasuri for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 10th April, 1978.

This second appeal is directed against the order dated 7th October, 1976 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad (form erly Lyallpur) set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Con troller and dismissed the ejectment application of the landlord appellant.

2. The appellant approached the Rent Controller with an appli cation under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordin ance (VI of 1959) inter alia on the ground that he required the shop for his personal need. He maintained that he was already occupying another shop in the locality but since his landlord was pressing him hard to vacate If it, therefore, he wanted to occupy his own which he had a few years ago purchased from one Abdul Latif. The contentions of the appellant were denied by the respondent and the Rent Controller, by his order dated 9th June, 1976 directed the respondent‑tenant to vacate. But in appeal, the learned Additional District Judge took a different view and observed that the appellant did not require the shop in dispute in good faith inasmuch as the dispute of the shop in his occupation had apparently been resolved on his agreeing to pay to his landlord an enhanced rent. It was held that the appellant was paying less rent than what he was charging from the respondent, and the fact, that his landlord had not by then initiated ejectment proceedings, was sufficient to infer that the appellant was not in genuine need. The application was consequently rejected. Hence this appeal.

3. It comes in evidence that the appellant was already occupying another shop in the vicinity and that an attempt was made by his landlord to get that shop vacated from the appellant, but his consent to pay an enhanced rent had, at the moment, warded off the danger of his being evicted. The evidence of the appellant has not been disbelieved The learned Additional District Judge used this evidence against the appellant and held that the appellant, being already in occupation of an equally good shop, was not entitled to get the respondent ejected without showing that the one in his occupation was not sufficient for his need.

4. A question arises whether a landlord cannot get his own shop vacated if he is already occupying another shop in the locality unless he successfully proves that it is not suitable for his purposes, Section 13 (3) (a) (ii) (a) and (b) provides that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, in case of a non‑residential building or 'a scheduled building or rented land if he requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his male children, and he or his said child is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the case may be, suitable for his needs at the time. The "suitability" may be expressed by words or may be inferred from the circumstances existing on record. It has been proved by the appellant that he could gain time when he showed his willingness to enhance rent. Such a pressure is usual and the appellant can expect another threat of dispossession on any unforeseen moment. Therefore, avoidance of such an occasion by occupying his own shop by itself amounts to suitability. It is authoritatively held in Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Dr. Najam Parvez (1976 S C M R 52') that the requirement that the land lord should not be in occupation of another residential building suitable for his need at the time does not extend to cover rented premises, for, otherwise the result would be that no landlord would be able to get his own pre mises vacated for his own occupation unless he can show that he is actu ally on the streets and has no place to live at all, it would be more rea sonable to hold that the other residential accommodation, which the landlord is occupying at the time, must be shown to be his own and not merely rented premises.

5. This rule was tried to be distinguished an the ground that the principle applicable to a residential building could not be relied on in respect of a non‑residential building. I do not agree with this argu ment. There is very little difference between them, because both of the types can be claimed by the landlord at least for his own need. It is, therefore, clear that the word "not occupying" are used with reference to the premises owned by the landlord.

6. It is already observed that the evidence produced by the appellant has not been disbelieved. It is, therefore; proved that the appellant landlord is bona fide anxious to occupy his own shop so as 'to avoid liabilities such as payment of rent regularly, keeping the property in fit condition to the satisfaction of the owner, restraint from making alterations suitable to the business the appellant is carrying on and refraining from expanding the career by joining in business a financier or a partner etc. Evasion of such legal impediments is a bona fide suitability which always exists when the landlord is occupying a building not belonging to him. The appellant has proved his suitability and is thus entitled to get the shop in dispute for his personal need. The view adopted by the lear ned Additional District Judge is against law and is, therefore, set aside.

7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the application is allowed. The respondent‑tenant is, therefore directed to put the landlord in vacant possession of the shop in dispute within a period of 60 days. The parties shall bear their own costs.

M. Y. H. 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.