Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 337 of 1981, decided on 25th October, 1983.

‑‑ S. 13‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Ejectment‑Personal need‑Son of landlord for whom shop requir ed not appearing in witness‑box‑.Inference adverse to landlord, held, could be drawn in circumstances of case‑Landlord occupy ing shop vacated by another tenant‑Bona fide requirement of shop in dispute not proved‑Dismissal of ejectment application, upheld.

Ch. M. A. Saleem for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th October, 1983.

The petitioner, a landlord, had applied for ejectment of the respon dent on grounds of default and personal need. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on 17th June, 1980 on the ground of personal need but in appeal the learned District Judge, Multan reversed the finding on 26th October, 1980 when he came to the conclusion that the personal need of the landlord was not bona fide. The present writ petition challenges the orders of the learned District Judge of 26th October, 1980.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has three grown up sons and between him and his sons needs four different shops to run their business. He has stated that four shops are owned by the petitioner and his brother and there fore only two shops fall to his share and his requirement of the premises for himself and his sons is bona fade. The learned District Judge, on the other hand, has found that out of the four shops referred to above shop No. 3 was in occupation of the petitioner where he was running the business of Fazal Autos. The learned District Judge relied on the record of Excise and Taxation Department which was duly proved in evidence and came to the conclusion that contrary to the claim of the landlord shop No. 3 was still in his occupation. Coupled with this fact was the asser tion of the petitioner that he required the disputed shop for his personal use. This was precisely the position which the landlord adopted in the ejectment petition although when he appeared in the witness‑box he made an improvement by saying that the shop was required by him as well as by his son. His son for whose benefit the improvement was made how ever did not appear in the witness‑box. It is true that there is no absolute rule that in the absence of the son as a witness the personal need is to be rejected yet in the circumstances of the case an inference only adverse to the landlord can be drawn in the present case. Yet another important development which took place during the pendency of the present proceedings was the vacation of shop No. 5 on 11th November, 1979 by Zaheer Ahmad, another tenant of the petitioner. This shop is now in occupation of the landlord. There is no explanation from the landlord as to why the shop vacated by Zaheer Ahmad cannot meet the needs of the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion I am in agreement with the learned District Judge when he came to the conclusion that the landlord was not above to prove the bona fides of his personal need. The writ petition must fail and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Petition 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.