Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.3102 of 1982, heard on 22nd January, 1984

---S.13--Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of landlord--Onus, held, lies on landlord to establish his entitlement to possession of premises in occupation of tenant.--[Burden of proof];

---S.13--Ejectment on ground of personal requirement--Order of ejectment reversed by appellate Court with observation that shop was required by landlord for business which he had left some years ago and that his son for whom shop also required had no experience or training to run said business--Observation of appellate Court, held, contrary to law--Landlord having conducted business himself could assist and guide his son in business and no adverse inference could be drawn from fact that he had left business--Approach of appellate Court totally erroneous and resulting in miscarriage of justice--Evidence on record having not been proved unworthy of credit, good faith of requirement of shop by landlord could not be said to have not been proved--Appellate Court also failing to give effect to safeguards provided in S.13(4)--Order of appellate Court quashed and order of Rent Controller whereby tenant evicted, restored in circumstances.

---S.13--Ejectment--Personal requirement--Statement on oath of landlord as well as his son, held, sufficient to establish requirement in good faith.

J.H. Rizvi for Petitioner.

Mian Saeed-ur-Rahman Khan for Respondent No.3.

Dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd January, 1984.

This constitution petition arises out of an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner seeking ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute inter alia on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence directed eviction of the respondent vide order dated 16-12-1980. This order was, however, reversed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal vide judgment dated 10-5-1981. The learned appellate Court was of the view that the good faith of the requirement has not been established by the petitioner/ landlord as the landlord had left that very business some years ago and that as the son of the petitioner for whose business the shop in question was required has admittedly no experience or training to run the business.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence produced by the parties before the learned Rent Controller. No doubt the onus initially lies on the landlord to establish his entitlement to the possession of the premises in occupation of other tenant but that onus was sufficiently discharged in the instant case as not only the landlord but also his son for whom the shop was required appeared in the witness-box and deposed that the shop in question was required for conducting business. The observations made by the learned appellate Court while reversing findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller are unwarranted. These observations are also contrary to the law laid down by the superior Courts. No doubt the petitioner had left the business of hardware but that was about 10/11 years ago. Moreover the plea that the son of the petitioner had no special experience or training for conducting business cannot form sufficient basis for holding that there was only anxiety on the part of the landlord to obtain possession. The petitioner having conducted the business himself can assist and guide his son in the business and no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the petitioner had abandoned his business a decade ago. Moreover, statement on oath of the landlord as well as of his son was sufficient to establish the good faith of the requirement. The approach of the learned appellate Court was totally erroneous and has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The good faith of the requirement of the shop cannot be said to have not been proved as the evidence produced on record was not held to be unworthy of credit. The learned appellate Court also failed to give effect to the safeguard provided in section 13(4) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The view taken in the impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and as such cannot be sustained. The judgment is, therefore, quashed with the result that the order of eviction dated 16-12-1980 of the learned Rent Controller stands restored. The respondent is, however, allowed four months' time to vacate the shop subject to the payment of monthly rent.

3. There will be no order as to cost.

M . Y . H . Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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