Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 21(1)‑‑Personal requirement of landlord‑‑Further evidence‑ Production of‑‑Application for‑‑Landlord made application before Rent Controller during pendency of case to produce further evidence to prove his personal requirement on ground that after production of his evidence in his eviction application he had resigned from his job‑‑Rent Controller while disposing of application did not reject plea of landlord but on the contrary stated that document in proof of resignation might be kept on record for consideration at time of final hearing‑‑While considering said document in final judgment Rent Controller neither offered opportunity to landlord to bring document properly on record nor opportunity to tenant to cross‑examine landlord in that regard‑ Consideration of document and consequent comment of Rent Controller thereon in final judgment, held, was based on surmises and conjectures‑‑In absence of document on record it could neither be considered nor commented upon by Rent Controller in his final order.

S. Inayat Ali for Appellant.

Afzal H. Effendi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3th September, 1985.

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by, the appellant /landlord against the order of lent Controller rejecting his ejectment application filed on the ground >f default and personal requirement against the respondent.

Before the Rent Controller the issue of default was not pressed end only ground of personal requirement was agitated which was disbelieved by the Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties. It may be mentioned here that the rent application was filed in :he year 1976 by the appellant /landlord for eviction on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement and he was examined in Court on L9‑2‑1978. The appellant examined another witness on 26‑5‑1979 and on :hat date he closed his side. It has come in the evidence of the appellant before the Rent Controller that, he was in the employment of C.D.A. as Upper Division Clerk and it was one of the circumstances which the Rent Controller took into consideration in dismissing the application on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. However, after respondent was examined in the case and before he was cross‑examined the appellant moved an application on 8‑1‑1980 before the Rent Controller requesting that he may be allowed to reopen his side and produce further evidence which consisted of his resignation .from his job from the K.D.A.. This application was heard by the Rent Controller and by order, dated 30‑4‑198fl he directed that this document nay be kept on record to be considered at the time of final hearing. The Rent Controller in his order, declining to grant ejectment on the ground of personal requirement, referred to the resignation tendered )y the appellant on 7‑7‑1979 and stated that even this piece of evidence lid not improve upon the. case of the appellant as in the affidavit filed n support of his application he has not stated that after resigning from his job he has not accepted any other job and, therefore, this evidence is of no avail to him. The Rent Controller also declined to ;rant ejectment on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement n the ground that one of the witness, namely, Qamar Zaman was evicted from one of the shops owned by the appellant during the pendency of the rent case but he has not stated as to why this shop could not be utilised by him for his business. From the evidence of Qamar Zaman it appears that he was dispossessed from the shop after the evidence of the appellant in the case was closed and, therefore, :he counsel for the respondent had no opportunity of putting this question in cross‑examination to the appellant. The application was filed under the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, section 14 whereof barred filing of a fresh application in the same cause of action by the landlord. The appellant made an application to the Rent Controller for reopening of the side on the ground that he has resigned from his job and the Rent Controller, while disposing of the application did not reject the plea of the appellant: :o produce the document on record but on the contrary he stated that the document may be kept on record for consideration at the time of final hearing. The consideration of the document and consequent comment of the Rent Controller thereon in the final judgment without affording in opportunity to the appellant and the respondent in this regard amounts to a judgment based on surmises and conjectures in view the fact that the Rent Controller was inclined to consider this document in the final order he should have allowed opportunity to the parties to bring the document properly on record and further allowed the respondent to cross‑examine the appellant in that regard. In the absence of that, the document could neither be considered nor commented upon by the Rent Controller in the impugned order. I am inclined, in these circumstances, to send this case back to the Rent Controller for further inquiry in the light of the facts stated by the appellant regarding his resignation from his job from the K.D.A. as otherwise if the application as decided barred the filing of a fresh application by the appellant in the circumstances of the present case. The case is accordingly remitted back to the Rent Controller with the direction to allow the appellant to lead evidence in support of his contention that he has resigned from his job and that‑ he needed the premises for his personal and bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller may also in this regard allow such evidence, which the respondent may offer to produce in rebuttal. The respondent will be entitled to cross‑examine the appellant at full length with regard to his resignation as well as with regard to shop which he allegedly got vacated during the, pendency of the rent case. After allowing the parties to lead evidence the Rent Controller will decide the issue of personal and bona fide requirement afresh in the light of the evidence which may come on the record. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Since the case was originally filed in 1976 the Rent Controller shall make every effort to dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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