Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑‑Shop‑ Personal requirement‑‑Except for bare statement of landlord that he required property, nothing else existing in his evidence to support his case for personal requirement‑‑Landlord neither stating in his evidence that he required property for business nor showing any other purpose for which he required shop nor mentioning particular business which he would carry on in shop in question‑‑Case for ejectment of tenant, held, was not made out on ground of personal requirement‑‑Order of Rent Controller ejecting tenant set aside.

Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ali Jan Khan 1983 C L C 2222; Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Adam Khan 1983 C L C 2657; Meher Elahi v. Muhammad Qamruddin 1985 C L C 2094 and Gul Hassan v. Habibullah 1985 C L C 2281 ref.

Malik M. Saeed for Appellant.

Abdul Alim K. Talib for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th April, 1986.

This rent appeal was filed by the tenant Muhammad Mohsin Ali challenging the order, dated 5‑4‑1982 passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby ejectment of the tenant was ordered on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent /landlord. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant Muhammad Mohsin All died. An application C.M.A. No. 651 of 1984 was filed for bringing the names of the legal heirs of tenant Muhammad Mohsin Ali on record. By order, dated 18‑3‑1984 the said application was granted and the son Gul Muhammad, Mst. Shahidunnisa, widow and Mst. Zohra Begum daughter of the deceased tenant Muhammad Mohsin Ali were brought on record as appellants. I have heard Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Alim K. Talib learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The ejectment application had been filed in May, 1978, on the ground of personal requirement and default. The impugned order of the Rent Controller, dated 5‑4‑1982 shows that during the. proceedings before the Rent Controller the case on the ground of default was not pressed by the landlord. The only point involved in this appeal, therefore, is whether the finding and decision of the Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement is sustainable or not.

In the ejectment application paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 relate to personal requirement. it may be observed here that the premises are a shop and the shop was rented out by the respondent to the tenant sometimes in 1964. In these paragraphs of the ejectment application the case of the respondent was that a few years earlier the respondent had retired from service and since then he was out of job and his family consisted of eight members and his elder son was also jobless and the respondent had the intention of starting some business in the shop in question with the help of his elder son. The averments of the respondent were contested by the tenant, who filed the written statement. The evidence was recorded by the learned Rent Controller, which included the landlord, the tenant and one Muhammad Yaqoob was also examined on behalf of the tenant. He was a tenant of an adjacent shop belonging to a third party.

Learned counsel have taken me through the evidence recorded before the Rent Controller and on a perusal of the entire evidence of l respondent /landlord it is found that except for the tare statement that he requires the shop there is nothing else in his evidence to support his case for personal requirement. He has not even stated in his evidence that he requires the premises for doing some business and therefore, obviously there is nothing in the evidence of the respondent as to the precise business he wants to carry on in the premises in question. Evidence also discloses that he retired in 1967 and after retirement he has been working as a draughtsman at Hyderabad. But the bare :statement of the landlord that he requires the shop, in the facts and circumstances of this case, does not make out a case for ejectment. As observed earlier, he has not even stated in his evidence the purpose for which he requires the shop. He has not even stated that he requires it for business. He has not stated that what particular business he will carry on in the shop in question.

Learned counsel for the respondent had cited the following authorities: ‑

(i) Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ali Jan Khan 1983 C L C 2222.

In this reported judgment at least the landlord had stated that he wanted the premises .for doing some business. In the instant case even this is not stated by the landlord in his evidence. Even otherwise, with respect, 1 may observe that at least in the evidence the landlord is required to state the precise purpose for which the premises are required by the landlord.

(ii) Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Adam Khan 1983 C L C 2657.

In this reported judgment it was held that the statement of the landlord if consistent with his averments in his ejectment application is a sufficient proof of his bona fide requirement. This authority does not help the case of the respondent. It has already been observed that in the evidence no case has been made out for eviction of the tenant

on the ground of personal requirement.

(iii) Meher Elahi v. Muhammad Qamruddin 1985 C L C 2094.

This judgment is clearly distinguishable. In that case the precise business, which the landlord wanted to carry on was not only specified in the ejectment application but the averments in the ejectment application were also fully confirmed in the evidence led by the landlord.

(iv) Gul Hassan v . Habibullah 1985 C L C 2281.

In this decision the personal requirement of the residential property by the landlord was not disputed and the tenant in his cross‑examination had admitted the facts stated by the landlord before the Court. The decision does not help the respondent.

(v) Naimuddin Siddiqui v . S.M. Ahmad Habibur Rehman 1983 C L C 1378.

Neither the facts nor the principle laid down in this judgment are relevant to the point involved in the instant case.

4. As the respondent/ landlord had failed to make out a case in his evidence for personal requirement, this appeal is to be allowed '.

5. F . R . A . Note 626 of 1982 is allowed and the impugned order, dated 5‑4‑1982 passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, allowing Rent Case No. 2422 of 1978 is set aside. s 11 There will be no order as to costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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