Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 362/K of 1984, decided on 30th August, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Sind High Court, dated 15-5-1984 in First Rent Appeal No.139 of 1983).

---Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13--Ejectment sought on grounds of personal need of landlord- Personal need of landlord shown to have been that marriage of son of landlord was postponed for want of accommodation and wife of landlord being heart patient was advised to live on ground floor--Courts below having found statement of landlord and witnesses to be correct--Supreme Court declined to interfere in findings of Courts below being on question of fact--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Ansarul Islam Qarni, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 30th August, 1984.

Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order, dated 15-5-1984 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court in the First Regular Appeal No. 139 of 1983.

2. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Ahsanullah Rahmani was inducted as tenant of house No.961 Block No.III Liaqatabad, Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs.160 on 1-9-1972. The rent was later on raised to Rs.200 per month. After some time the respondent filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal requirement of the premises in. question because his son was to be married and also because the respondent's wife being a heart patient needs to be shifted to the ground floor. The application was contested giving rise to the following issues:

(a) Whether the applicant requires the premises in good faith for his personal bona fide use and the use of his family members

(b) What should the order be

The learned Rent Controller, after considering evidence produced by the parties, ordered ejectment of the petitioners in the following terms: "In view of my finding on issue No.l, I grant the application of the applicant and direct the opponent to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the applicant within 119 days from the date of this order subject to his payment of rent for the period allowed to him."

3. Against the aforesaid order First Regular Appeal was filed in the High Court which was dismissed, as said earlier, by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, dated 15-5-1984 on the ground that the two witnesses namely Muhammad Iqbal Hussain and Jamal Hussain had fully corroborated their claim as contained in the ejectment applica tion.

4. Main grievances of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the Courts below have wrongly relied on the admission on the part of petitioner Sarwatullah who, being ignorant of English language, said about the 'bona fide' only that "the witness does not know if the respondent required the premises bona fide" and thus it was not an admission; that the learned Courts below overlooked the fact that the respondent did not examine any independent witness except his son Jamal Hussain who stated that his marriage was withheld for two years for want of accommodation; that the learned Courts below over-emphasized the mistaken deposition of petitioner Sarwatullah that he heard for 6/7 .years that respondent's son was going to be married but due to lack of accommodation the marriage was postponed.

5. We have examined the aforesaid points and find that the Courts below have found the statement of the petitioners to be, correct and this being a question of fact, no interference is, therefore, called for by this Court. We find that this petition has no merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed.

M . Z . M . 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.