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 Appeal No. Q‑11 of 1985, heard on 3rd May, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Baluchistan High Court, dated 12‑6‑1984 in F.A.O. No. 2 of 1984)
‑‑‑Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal requirement‑‑A room of the house rented out by landlord to tenant which was being used for business purpose‑‑Bona fide need for personal use as Baithak of house‑‑ Ejectment application allowed by Rent Controller but decision upset by High Court‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Fact that premises in dispute essentially constituted a part of appellant's residential house and was bona fide required by him for personal use, established on record‑‑If, by its very nature and structure, premises in question are of residential character, landlord can seek eviction of tenant on ground of personal requirement for residence, notwithstanding fact that same might have been used ‑by tenant for commercial purpose‑‑Order of High Court set aside and order of eviction upheld.
Muhammad Razman v. Abdul Hannan No. C. A. Q‑14 of 1984;
Amjad Ali Shah v. Iqbal Ahmed Farooqi P L D 1985 S C 242 and Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hannan 1985 S C M R 2082 rel.
Raja M. Afsar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1986.
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, dated 12‑6‑1984 whereby an order of eviction passed against the respondent‑tenant by the Rent Controller was set aside and respondent's appeal was allowed.
Appellant had sought respondent's eviction from a room of his residential house which was being used by respondent for business purpose on the ground that appellant requires it bona fide for personal use as Baithak of the house. Learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties accepted appellant's plea, but on appeal a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court held that the room having let out for commercial use could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement by the landlord for his residential use.
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in view of the rule laid down by this Court in several cases, and reference was made in this connection to Civil Appeal No. Q‑14 of 1984 (Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hannan), decided on 6‑4‑1985 that if, by its very nature and structure, the premises in question are of residential character, the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant on ground of personal requirement for residence; notwithstanding the fact, that the same might have been used by the tenant for commercial purpose.
The above view has support in various cases of this Court for example, Amjad Ali Shah v. Iqbal Ahmed Farooqi P L D 1985 S C 242 and Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hannan 1985 S C M R 2082. Since it has been held as finding of the fact that the premises in dispute essentially constitute a part of appellant's residential house, he was entitled to seek respondent's eviction on the ground that he bona fide requires the same for the personal use which fact also stands proved on the record. For these reasons, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the result that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent is upheld. In the circumstances however the parties are left to bear their own costs.
M. I. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer