Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeals Nos. 18‑Q and 19‑Q of 1985, decided on 10th August, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Baluchistan Quetta, dated 17‑12‑1984 passed in First Appeal No. 97 of 1983).

-‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13(3)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine correctness of findings that in circumstances of the case the tenant should not have been evicted on ground of default as conduct of landlord did not warrant exercise of discretion in his favour and that premises in dispute being a part of hotel landlord could not evict tenant on ground of personal need.

‑‑‑S. 13(3)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑Order set aside by High Court because conduct of landlord did not warrant exercise of discretion against tenant‑‑Supreme Court, though not satisfied with reasoning adopted by High Court, upheld its finding because landlord had not clearly given particulars of default and had been collecting rent on yearly basis.

‑‑‑Ss. 13(3) & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑High Court deciding issue of personal requirement without discussing evidence of parties and merely by making reference to relevant section of Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑Finding of High Court, held, was very sketchy and could not be sustained‑‑Case remanded for decision afresh on basis of pleadings and evidence available on record.

Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 10th August, 1986.

The judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, dated 17‑12‑1984 is under challenge in this appeal pursuant to leave granting order of this Court, dated 16‑4‑1985.

2. As per impugned judgment the rent appeal of the tenant/ respondent against the order of eviction, dated 30‑11‑1983 passed by the Rent Controller was allowed and the cross‑objection filed by the appellant, challenging the finding on the issue of personal requirement of the premises by him registered a separate appeal, was dismissed.

3. The dispute relates to a shop premises bearing No. 451(2‑4/46), Liaquat Road, Sibi. The appellant sought ejectment of the respondent from the said tenement on the ground of default in payment of rent from June, 1982, to May, 1983 and his bona fide personal requirement. The ejectment application was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the tenancy was yearly and as such the rent for the year 1983 had not yet become due when the application was filed. It was further contended that the rent for one year had already been deposited in Court on 11‑5‑1983, before the institution of the ejectment case. The Rent Controller accepted the plea of default and ordered respondent's ejectment on that ground. The appellant's plea regarding the personal requirement, however, did not succeed. The respondent thereupon filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the order of his eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent while the appellant filed cross‑objection with a view to seek reversal of the order of the Rent Controller on his plea of personal requirement.

4. In allowing the appeal of the respondent, the learned High Court came to held that although there was non‑payment of rent for about one year and the plea of tenancy being on yearly basis was also not convincing, yet the respondent should not have been evicted on the ground of default as the conduct of the appellant did not warrant the exercise discretion against the tenant. As respects the question of, requirement of the premises on the ground of personal need of the landlord, the learned High Court found that the premises in dispute is a part of the hotel of the appellant and he could not evict the respondent on this ground in view of the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Ordinance.

5. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the correctness of the above findings of the learned High Court.

6. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court, the facts discussed in the order of the Rent Controller and the evidence on the record. Although we are not satisfied with the reasoning adopted by the learned High Court in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller on the issue of default, nonetheless we are satisfied that the finding is otherwise sustainable. In the first place the appellant does not seem to have dearly given the particulars of default in his statement before the Rent Controller and his main emphasis was on the question of his personal requirement of the premises. Apart from such inadequacy of evidence it appears that according to the showing of the appellant himself he had, as per his statement, demanded one year's rent from the respondent when he was informed that the tenant had deposited the same in the Bank. This goes to show that the appellant used to collect rent on yearly basis, perhaps to suit his own convenience. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and Civil Appeal No. 18‑Q of 1985 is dismissed.

7. Civil Appeal No. 19‑Q of 1985 questions the finding of the learned High Court on the issue of personal requirement of the disputed premises. The learned High Court has not discussed the evidence of the parties on this issue and reference has been merely made to section 13(3)(c) of the Ordinance. The finding of the learned High Court, to say the least, is very sketchy and cannot be sustained. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the learned High Court for deciding the issue of the personal requirement of the premises afresh on the basis of the pleadings and evidence available on the record.

8. In the result both the appeals are disposed of as indicated above, with no order as to costs.

M.I. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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