Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 19‑K of 1986, decided on 17th March, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 15‑10‑1985, in First Rent Appeal 127 of 1985).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.15 a 21‑‑Ejectment‑‑Landlord initially seeking ejectment under S 14 amended application adding grounds of default and personal requirement‑‑Rent Controller dismissed application with liberty to landlord to file separate application under S.15‑‑High Court remanded case for fresh decision‑ Case heard after remand afresh and ejectment application allowed by Rent Controller‑‑Appeal of petitioner dismissed by High Court‑‑Plea raised before Supreme Court that remand order on earlier occasion was improper and illegal, repelled‑‑Remand order not having been challenged by petitioner, it was not open to him to assail same in appeal filed against final order passed after remand‑‑High Court's order dismissing appeal upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.15 a 21‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal need‑ Bona fide of personal requirement‑‑Plea that personal need of landlord was not bona fide, repelled‑‑High Court having considered evidence on record came to conclusion that personal requirement was bona fide‑‑It being question of fact conclusively determined by forums below, there was no ground to re‑open same‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th March, 1986.
The respondent who is the landlord of the disputed premises consisting of a house initially applied under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the eviction of the petitioner who is the tenant in the said premises. It seems subsequently the landlord amended the ejectment application and included a prayer for eviction of the petitioner under section 15 of the said Ordinance. The grounds urged in the amended application were default in the payment of rent by the petitioner and bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. By his order, dated 28th September, 1981, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord with liberty to him to file a separate application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
2. Being aggrieved the respondent /landlord challenged the order in appeal before the High Court of Sind which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision under section 15 of the said Ordinance. On remand the learned Rent Controller heard the case afresh and allowed the ejectment application directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the disputed premises to the respondent vide order, dated 15th January, 1985. The appeal of the petitioner before the Sind High Court having been dismissed by order, dated 15th October, 1985, he has approached this Court for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has contended that the remand order passed by the High Court on the earlier occasion was improper and illegal. He has further contended that in view of the changing stand taken by the respondent in applying under section 14 initially and then having resort to section 15 of the Ordinance, clearly, his claim for personal use was not bona fide.
4. We have perused the judgment and orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court rightly refused to consider the first contention on the ground that the remand order not having been challenged by the petitioner, it was not open to him to assail the same in the appeal filed against the final order passed after the remand As regards the second argument we sire satisfied that the High Court has considered the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the plea of the respondent of personal requirement was bona fide. This is a question of fact conclusively determined by the forums below and there is no ground to reopen the same. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
M.I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer