Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑228 of 1982, decided on 8th September, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 13‑6‑1982 in F. R . A . No. 203 of 1981) .

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of landlord‑‑Courts below accepting case of landlord concurrently that he required premises genuinely for accommodating his family members‑‑Submission raising question of facts standing concluded by findings recorded by Court of first instance and affirmed by Court of appeal‑‑No evidence on record to show that plea of landlord was motivated by ulterior object‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, dated 13‑6‑1982, upholding the order of ejectment of the petitioner- company from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent‑landlord.

2. Originally the landlord had urged the ground: of default in payment of rent as well in support of his petition for ejectment but that question is no longer in issue as it was found by the Rent Controller that the petitioner had deposited the rent regularly in his office.

3. The Courts below have accepted the case of the landlord concur rently, that he requires the premises genuinely for accommodating his family members as the premises in his occupation presently, were inadequate for their requirements. The landlord was found to have proved by his evidence that he has three sons, two daughters and one married son alongwith his family who were required to be accommodated, alongwith the landlord in the disputed premises. Further, the marriages of the two sons were also held up for want of proper accommodation. In these circumstances both Courts below found that the accommodation presently occupied by the family consisting of two bed rooms was not sufficient for their needs and, therefore, the landlord's demand was bona fide.

4. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has raised no legal ground to assail the concurrent findings of the Court below. He, however, contended that the application for ejectment was mala fide, that the landlord has another house which is sufficient for his needs and that the Courts below have misread the evidence on record in regard to the number of family members of the landlord.

5. After hearing the counsel at length we find no substance in any of the contentions raised. Firstly, all the submissions raise essentially questions of fact which stand‑concluded by the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and affirmed by the Court of appeal. Non-theless there seems to be no evidence on record to show that the plea of the respondent was motivated by ulterior object other than his genuine requirement. There is no evidence on record and none was produced by the petitioner to show that the landlord has any other house of his own. It is in the judgment of the High Court that the landlord's family consists of 12 members, comprising himself, his wife, his three sons and two daughters, wife and three children of his married son. Learned counsel conceded that at the most the number of family members may be nine. Even so it is inconceivable to hold that nine inmates of family, including a married couple with children, could possibly live with convenience in a two bed room house.

6. In the result we find no force in this petition and dismiss it accordingly.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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