Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 887 of 1984, decided on 27th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 15 a 21‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑Plea of bona fide personal requirement initially related to landlady's husband's retirement from service and his proposed residence in rented premises‑‑Subsequently additional plea of ailment of husband was put forward by landlady which necessitated his shifting to where premises in dispute was situated‑‑Evidence on record not being substantial to have led Rent Controller to hold that landlady required premises for personal use‑ Order of Rent Controller for ejectment of tenant was set aside by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in view of same being based on imaginary ground.

Zaheeruddin for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1985.

The appellants are the tenants of .the respondents in the three flats bearing Nos. H.C. 25, 28 and 29 situated in Central Commercial Area (Market, Area) Block 3, Karachi Co‑operative Housing Society (Union), Karachi at settled rent. They are also the tenants of the respondents in Shop No. 3 and an office room in the same building at a settled rent.

2. The respondent filed ejectment application against them on the ground that they had put the premises to use other than the one they were let by converting the office room as a residential unit, and the flat on the first floor as a bank godown, and sublet all the flats on the first floor. They also advanced additional ground of the personal requirement for getting the rented premises vacated. The ejectment case was filed on 17‑7‑1980 before the First Rent Controller, Karachi. The appellant resisted the application and denied all the allegations. The learned First Rent Controller struck the following issues for determination:‑

(1) Whether the opponents have converted the use of premises or any part thereof

(2) Whether the opponents have effected any addition or alteration without consent of the applicants

(3) Whether the opponents have sublet a portion of the premises to someone else

(4) Whether the applicants require the premises in good faith for their own use

(5) What should the order be

The parties adduced evidence. The learned First Rent Controller decided issues Nos.l, 2 and 3 against the respondent while he decided issue No. 4 in favour of the respondents partially. He held that the respondents needed residential flats for their own use. Consequently, order for ejectment was passed on that ground on 20‑8‑1984. The appellants have preferred this appeal against that order.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the respondents belong to Lahore and they do not bona fidely need the rented premises for their own use. According to him, the rent application was filed as the appellants did not agree to enhance rent of the premises. He has pointed out that the respondents had advanced the grounds that the husband of the respondent No.l and father of respondent No‑2 is an old person and he has been ailing and he needs to shift to Karachi for climatic change and they have placed reliance on a medical certificate obtained in the year 1982, whereas the application alas filed in the year 1980. The contention of the learned counsel is that the ground advanced by the respondents is not genuine one and they have not established that they bona fidely need the premises for their own use. None has appeared to resist the appeal.

4. The respondent sought ejectment of the appellants on several grounds. They did not succeed in establishing those grounds except one relating to the personal requirement of having rented premises vacated. The ground for personal use stated in the application was that the husband of the respondent, No.l and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 was the retired person and wished to settle in Karachi. They came forward, later, with an additional ground that the same of person had developed ailment and he needed shifting to Karachi and produced a certificate, dated 24th January, 1982. It appears from the record that the respondent was interested in increasing the rent of the rented premises. The learned First Rent Controller has accepted the plea of the respondents of imaginary ground that the husband of the respondent No.l and father of respondents Nos.2 and 3 must have been suffering from ailment and, therefore, they must be needing the rented premises for their personal use.

5. In fact, there does not seem substantial evidence on record t have lead the learned First Rent Controller to hold that the respondents, needed the rented premises for their personal use. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the First Rent Controller, dated 20‑8‑1984 is set aside. The parties shall bear their own 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.