Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. K‑123 of 1980, decided on 25th January, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court dated 16‑8‑1978 in Second Appeal No. 31 of 1972):

--Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan. Urban. Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(3)‑Ejectment from shop on ground of personal need of landlord‑Leave to appeal‑Granted to examine whether Courts below applied correct law on concept of personal need of‑ landlord and whether appellant landlord was estopped from reviving a closed" given up business:

‑ ‑ Ss. 13 & 15‑Ejectment from shop on ground of personal require ment of landlord set aside by District Judge‑Record of case showing no escape from conclusion reached by High Court that appellant. landlord failed to establish ground of bona fide requirement of shop for personal use‑Conclusion drawn by District Judge as well as High Court, very congent and legitimate‑Held, cannot be interfered with by Supreme Court.

Maroof Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and V. A. Kidwai, Advocate -on‑Record for Appellant.

Nasrullah Aran, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th January, 1983.

‑The facts leading to this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant who is a goldsmith by profession rented out his shop bearing No. B‑3001, Sarafa Bazar, Sukkur to the respondent by an agreement dated 24th April, 1964, and simultaneously he sold to respondent the articles such as ceiling fans, iron safe, show‑cases, weighing scale with complete set of weights, etc.

On 1st December, 1969 appellant by a notice called upon the respon dent to vacate the shop on the ground that the tenancy agreement had expired and also that he required the shop for his personal use. Afterwards he refused to accept rent from respondent although the amount was sent to him through money orders. Subsequently, on 26th of January, 1970 he applied to the Rent Controller for the ejectment of respondent on the ground that respondent was a defaulter in payment of rent and also that he bona fide required the shop for his personal use. The Rent Controller held that the first ground of ejectment was totally useless inasmuch as respondent had sent rent for December, January, and February by money orders but appellant had refused to accept the same. In regard to the ground of personal requirement the Rent Controller, however, took the view in favour of the appellant and accordingly passed an order directing respondent's ejectment from the shop.

On appeal by the respondent the District Judge, Sukkur took the contrary view as regards the appellant's plea that be bona fide requires the shop for his personal use. He took notice of the fact that While renting out the shop appellant sold away the fixtures of the shop and the instruments of the business, and since, in the opinion of the learned District Judge, nothing had transpired between the date of the agreement of tenancy and the filing of ejectment application which could have altered appellant's position, his plea that he required the shop for personal use was held to be not genuine, and on. this view of the case, learned District Judge set aside the order of the Rent Controller.

Appellant challenged the judgment of the District Judge in a second appeal to the Sind High Court, but it failed. Leave to appeal was, however, granted by this Court in order to examine whether the courts below had applied the correct law on the concept of the personal need requirement on the basis of which a landlord. can seek eviction of tenant from a shop, and also whether this was a case in which it can be said that appellant was stopped from reviving a business which he had closed or given up.

After having gone through the record of the case we find no esc from the conclusion reached by the High Court that the appellant has failed to establish the ground of bona fide requirement of the shop for person use. Learned Judge in the High Court who heard the appeal took not' of all the facts of the case, and also that the assertion of the only other witness, apart from himself examined by the appellant, that appellant, was working as a goldsmith in other shop was not even made by the appellant in his own statement. The conclusions of facts drawn by learned District Judge as well as the learned Judge in the High Court very cogent and legitimate and there is no scope for interference by this Court in this case.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

S. Q. 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.