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. 315‑K of 1984, decided on 7th November, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, dated 12‑2‑1984 in First Rent Appeal No. 63 of 1980).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2) (vii) ‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal requirement‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether landlord could be allowed to lead evidence inconsistent with his plea taken in application for ejectment and eviction order could be passed on basis that premises were required for male children of landlord when his case was that same were requires) for his personal use.
Badrudduja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th November, 1984.
‑‑Petitioner Muhammad Yasin was originally the tenant of Maula Bakhsh who appears to have died and was succeeded by respondent Karim Bakhsh, The demised premises consists of a shop in the commercial areas of Liaqatabad, Karachi. In 1979 Maula Bakhsh sought the eviction of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of "bona fide personal use of the landlord applicant himself." In the evidence adduced in support of his claim the petitioner however, stated:‑
"I require the shop in dispute for the use of my sons. Who are at present jobless and I want to put my sons in business in the shop in dispute. I will also sit on the shop as I cannot do any other job."
Similarly, respondent Karim Bakhsh also appeared as witness and stated that the shop was required for the use of himself and his brother (sons of Maula Bakhsh). On the other hand, Allah Bakhsh another son of Maula Bakhsh gave yet another version to the effect that Maula Bakhsh was an old man and could do no work, hence, the shop would be utilized by himself (Allah Bakhsh).
In spite of this state of evidence, the learned Rent Controller accepted the plea of Maula Bakhsh on the ground that the shop was required for the use of his sons and on this finding ordered the eviction of the petitioner, vide his order, dated 11‑12‑1979. In First Appeal filed by the petitioner the High Court agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal on 12‑2‑1984‑ The petitioner now seeks to challenge the order of his eviction by means of this petition for leave to appeal.
After hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner we feel that the question whether the landlord could be allowed to lead evidence inconsistent with his plea taken in the application for ejectment and eviction order could be passed on the basis that the premises were required for the male children of the landlord when his case was that the same were required for his personal use, requires consideration. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.1,000.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer