Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑Ss . 15 (2) (vii) & 21(1)‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑Proof‑ Averments made in eviction application about personal requirement of landlord and his family members was fully supported in deposition of landlord‑‑Nothing was brought out in cross‑examination which could show his claim to be false or based on wrong statement‑‑Assertion of landlord made on oath in respect of his personal requirement of premises, held, had to be accepted as bona fide if it was consistent with his averment in his application and was not shaken in cross‑examination or disproved in rebuttal.

‑‑‑Ss. 15‑A & 21(1)‑‑Re‑letting‑‑Safeguard against‑‑Statutory safeguard against letting premises to some one else after getting tenant evicted‑ Tenant held, could be put back in possession if landlord did not occupy premise himself after getting him evicted on ground of personal need.

Nisarally for Appellant.

Farman A. Hashmi for Respondents.

Dates of hearing: 5th and 18th August, 1985.

The appellant is the owner and landlord of the building situated on Plot No.R‑7, Block‑1, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, and the respondent No.2, is the tenant in respect thereof at the monthly rent of Rs.225. The appellant filed eviction application No.3585 of 1980 against the respondent on the grounds of default, subletting damage to the property and personal bona fide requirement.

The respondent No.1 filed written‑statement stating therein that tire appellant is entitled to the reliefs. The respondent No.2 resisted the eviction application.

The appellant filed affidavit‑in‑evidence and he was cross‑examined. In the rebuttal the respondent No.2 filed affidavit‑in- evidence and he was cross‑examined.

The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and after taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, issues Nos. 3 and 4 in the negative vide order dated 31‑5‑1984.

The appellant being aggrieved by order dated 31‑5‑1984 of the IX Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi has preferred this First Rent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

Mr. Nisarally, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Rent Controller erred in law in not taking into consideration that the appellant though putting up in the house of his father, is not occupying the same in his own right.

On the other hand Mr. Farman A. Hashmi, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order of the learned Rent Controller is in accordance with the evidence on record.

The appellant stated in his eviction application that he alongwith his family is presently staying with his parents in P.I. B. Colony and he required the premises for his own occupation and use and for that of his family members. He reiterated the same facts in his affidavit‑in -evidence. In his cross‑examination he has stated that "I am residing with father in House No.1868, P.I.B. Colony. This house consists of five rooms. I am residing there since 1960. In all 14 persons are residing in the house at P.I. B. Colony." In rebuttal the respondent No.2 in his affidavit‑in‑evidence stated that the ground for personal use is neither bona fide nor reasonable. The appellant intended to get the possession of the premises in order to relet the same on higher rent and for handsome money.

It is apparent that the statement in the application about personal requirement of the appellant and his family members has been fully supported in his deposition and nothing has been brought out in his cross‑examination which could show the claim to be false or based on wrong statements.

It is well settled legal position that assertion of the landlord on oath as to requirement of the premises for his personal use have to be accepted as bona fide if consistent with his averments, in his application If, and not shaken in cross‑examination or disproved in rebuttal.

With regard to the allegation that securing possession of the ;, premises in order to relet the same on higher rent and for handsome money, the respondent had denied the same in his deposition.

Moreover, the safeguard against letting the premises to sore e one else after getting the tenant evicted was provided in section 15‑ A of the Ordinance that Mlle tenant could be put back in possession the landlord does not occupy the premises himself after getting him:; evicted on the ground of personal need.

The finding of the learned Rent Controller is based on misreading of evidence. I, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and grant ejectment of respondent on the ground of personal requirement. The respondents are allowed six months time to vacate the premises.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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