Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 214 of 1979, decided on 27th March, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 24‑10‑1978 in S. A. O. No. 8 of 1978).

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

‑‑‑‑ S. 13(3)(ii)(a)‑‑ Eviction‑‑‑ Personal requirement ‑‑Landlord requiring shop for khangi zarurat‑‑ .Word "khangi" in context of statement of lambardar patently meant "zati" or "apna" and expression "khangi zarurat" meant "personal use"‑‑ ‑Landlord wishing shop to be vacated so that his grandson could run hotel with aid of servants for his benefit as his father who ran it earlier died and he himself had small children to maintain‑‑ Controversy, in context of such assertion, in regard to interpretation of word "children", held, without efficacy and requirement being within letter of law appellant tenant ordered to vacate premises‑ ‑Words and phrases].

Muhammad Hussain, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.

Ch. Akhtar All, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. . Date of hearing : 27th March, 1982.

MUHAMMAD HALBBM,

ACTG. C. J.‑This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 24th October, 1978, by which S. A. O. No. 8 of 1978 was dismissed.

The appellant was in possession of a shop described as Zarin Hotel in the city of Mansehra, at a monthly rental of Its. 330. The respondent herein sued for his ejectment on two grounds ; firstly, that he had defaulted in the payment of rent for the months of February and March, 1973 ; and secondly, that he needed it "brai zaroorat khangi". The Rent Controller gave his findings on both the grounds against the respondent and dismissed the application by order dated 15th of October, 1976. On appeal to the District Judge, Mansehra, the respondent only succeeded on the second ground. The appellant, thereupon, challenged this order in the High Court in second appeal but did not succeed.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether the need of the shop for the use of the respondent's grandson was covered by the expres sion "for the use of any of his male children" in section 13(3)(a)(ii)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The controversy arose in the following manner.

While being examined as his own witness, the respondent stated in cross‑examination that he was 70 years of age and that he wanted to give the hotel to his nephew for maintaining himself as he‑ had small children. He also gave out that his grandson had left his studies after reading upto 9th class. He denied the suggestion that the hotel was not needed by him. Earlier in his examination‑in‑chief he testified to the effect that his son had died who was running the hotel and that he now needed the hotel for giving it to his grandson who was 14/15 years old and had worked in the hotel alongwith his deceased son. The Rent Controller, while construing the word "children" held it to mean "a son or a daughter but not a grand son" and, therefore, what the respondent stated in his examination‑in‑chief was taken to mean that it was needed for his grandson and not for his personal use.

The first appellate Court held that the word "children" also included a grandson according to the meaning given to it in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary and that this requirement was bona fide as after leaving his studies it was necessary to provide to him a career for running a hotel as a means of living. The High Court held as under :‑‑‑

"The next point agitated is with respect to merits of the case. It is said that "." mentioned in the petition means own use and not requirement of any dependent child. If the building was to be put to the use of the grandson, it should have been specified as section 13 distinguishes own use from that of children. '1 would not agree to the contention due to certain definite reo.;1ans. The word ,r is broad enough to include children's requirement and secondly a dependent occupying his father or grand father's house and doing business is also using the premises for the benefit of the owner. Therefore, hair splitting is of no avail."

The word "khangi" mentioned in the application means "zati" or "apna". Eminently, therefore, what was alleged was his own personal use which is patent from the statement when read as a whole. He wanted his grandson to run the hotel with the aid of servants for his benefit as his father, who was running it earlier, had died and he had himself small children to maintain. In the context of this assertion, the controversy in regard to the interpretation of the word "children" has no efficacy. As the requirement was within the letter of the law, no further question arises for it examining the controversy in the light of the order granting leave.

Accordingly, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. The appellant undertakes to voluntarily vacate the premises within 4 months subject to the payment of rent. He is, as such, allowed to occupy the shop for the period in question but should hand over vacant possession as undertaken.

s. A. H. Appeal 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.