Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑141 of 1983, decided on 26th April, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, Karachi dated 22nd December, 1982 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 1117 of 1982).
------ Art. 185 (3)‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), ‑S. 15 (2)‑Ejectment on ground of bona fide requirement of premises by landlady for her own, occupation as well as for her children Order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller as upheld by High Court based on sufficient grounds and no illegality found to have been committed thereby‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed as being without any substance.
Amir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
A. K. M. Idris, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 26th April, 1983.
The dispute in this case relates to residential premises situate at Nazimabad, Karachi, which is in the occupation of the petitioner as a tenant of the respondent.
2. The XVIth Rent Controller, Karachi by his order dated 4‑11‑1982, on the application of the landlady, directed the ejectment of the petitioner, on the ground that the premises were required in good faith by the landlady for her own occupation and use as well as for her children. The plea raised in defence on the part of the petitioner that the landlady was occupying another house of her own and was disentitled from getting possession of the disputed premises, was rejected by the learned Rent Controller, as no such evidence had been produced by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal before the Sind High Court and a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissed in limine the appeal as per the impugned order dated 22‑12‑1982. The learned Single Judge affirmed the finding of the Rant Controller and held that there are six members of the respondent's family who are to be accommodated in the disputed premises and nothing bad been brought on the record by the petitioner "to indicate that the respondent was putting up in a house owned by her or that there are not six members of the family", On re‑examining the evidence the learned Judge held that there was sufficient evidence on record coupled with the admission of the petitioner that he had promised to vacate the premises as far back as in September, 1973, which sufficiently established the case of personal bona fide requirement on the part of the landlady.
4. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the landlady had not established that she was residing in rented accommodation and that the document produced in the evidence by her attorney (at page 52 of the paper book) was not a receipt of the rent paid by her but the receipt for the property tax paid for Mst. Fashin Begum. Nothing was, however, urged to assail the finding concurrently arrived at by the Rent Controller and the learned Judge in Chambers that the landlady had established her bona fide requirement by sufficient evidence. The only contention advanced was that the landlady was not residing in a rented accommodation. Mr. Amir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, very fairly conceded that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence that the landlady owns another house anywhere and indeed no other evidence was pointed out on the record except the bald oral assertion of the petitioner. Even if there is no evidence that the landlady was occupying rented accommodation, the fact remains that there is no evidence that she owns the house in which she is presently living. The contention advanced is, therefore, wholly devoid of force and irrelevant for the purpose of the decision of this case.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at length and persuing the orders of the Rent Controller as well as the learned Judge in the High Court, we are satisfied that there is no ground for intervention by this Court as the ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered for sufficient grounds and no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order.
6. For the foregoing reasons we find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer