Find a Lawyer

First Appeal No. 284 of 1983, heard on 13th May, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 15(2)(vii) 3 21(1)‑‑Ejectment application, dismissal of‑‑Validity of dismissal order challenged‑‑Bona fide requirement of landlord proved‑‑Personal bona fide requirement of landlord in respect of disputed premises having been accepted by Rent Controller, ejectment application of landlord, held, could not be dismissed on ground that disputed premises being residential in nature was required by landlord for non‑residential purposes.

Abdul Malik v. Ejaz Ahmad 1985 SCMR 1555; Gul Afzal Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Arif P L D 1979 Lah. 398 and Bhaledino v. Din Muhammad 1986 C L C 395 ref.

Khalilur Rehman for Appellant.

Abdul Alim K.Talib for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13th May 1986.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant /landlord challenging the order, dated 27‑3‑1983 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Karachi dismissing the Ejectment Case No. 631 of 1980 filed by the appellant for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement. I have heard Mr. Khalilur Rehman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Alim K. Talib, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. From a perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the learned Rent Controller had reached the conclusion that the premises were required in good faith by the appellant but he dismissed the ejectment application on the ground that the building was residential in nature and the premises in occupation of the tenant were required for non‑residential purpose by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the bona fides and good 'faith of the appellant have been accepted by the learned Rent Controller, in view of the law laid down in the case of Abdul Malik v. Ejaz Ahmad 1985 SCMR 1555 the ejectment application could not have been dismissed on the ground which prevailed with the Rent Controller. Mr. Abdul Alim K. Talib, learned counsel for the respondent concedes to this position and submits that the decision in 1985 S C M R 1555 is in favour of the appellant and under the law the appellant was entitled to an order of ejectment in the facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. Khalilur Rehman has pointed out that the learned Rent Controller while dismissing the ejectment application had relied upon the case of Gul Afzal Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Arif P L D 1979 Lah. 398 but the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1985 S C M R 1555 has observed that this Lahore authority was not applicable as the observations in the Lahore case had been made with reference to the provisions of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which was repealed by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, "whose provisions are not in pari material with those of the repealed Ordinance. Under the repealing Ordinance the words "premises" and "building" do not make any distinction between commercial and residential use nor clause (vii) of section 15 spells out any such distinction.

Mr. Khalilur Rehman has also cited another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaledino v. Din. Muhammad 1986 CLC 395 which also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the facts of this case the appellant had made out a case for grant of an ejectment order against the respondent.

3. The impugned order, dated 27‑3‑1983 is, in the circumstances, set aside and Ejectment Case No. 631 of 1980 filed by the appellant i allowed and ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question ordered.

Mr. Abdul Alim K. Talib, learned counsel for the respondent, requests for one year's time to vacate the premises. Time is granted till 31‑12‑1986 to the respondent to vacate the premises subject, however, to payment/deposit of rent. It is further ordered that in case the premises are not vacated and vacant possession of the same delivered to the appellant on or before 31‑12‑1986, in. an execution application filed by the appellant, writ of possession will be issued without notice to the respondent.

There will be no order as to costs.

H.B.T Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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