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.
First Rent Appeal No.592 of 1982, decided on 31st March, 1985.
---Ss.14 & 21(1,)--Ejectment of tenant on ground of retirement--Land lord seeking ejectment of tenant from shop in dispute, claimed in his ejectment application and affidavit that he required shop for business purposes, but his claim was negatived by his own statement in cross examination where he admitted that he required such shop for residential purpose--Claim for purpose of residence in respect of shop having never been made in ejectment application, provisions of S.14, held,- did not allow premises to be vacated for purpose which originally was not contemplated by landlord in notice which he has given in his ejectment application.
Faizanul Haq for Appellant.
Muhammad Ali Jan and Hassan Imam for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th March, 1985.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, dated 26-4-1982 whereby he directed ejectment of the appellant in Rent Case No.2579/1980. It is an admitted position that the respondent has retired from Government Service and he had asked for the eviction of two tenants namely, Muhammad Akbar who is in occupation of shop No.2 and also for the eviction of another tenant Mubarak from the contiguous shop. It is an admitted position that the shop of Mubarak has been ordered to be vacated and the same is in occupation of the respondent. The claim of the respondent was that he wanted to run a General Provision Store and, therefore, one shop would not be enough for this purpose as one shop is very small (9 x 9') and, therefore, he had applied for eviction of both the tenants at the same time. However, when the respondent was cross-examined, he admitted in his cross-examination that he will use the shop of Mubarak for the purposes of business while in the other shop he will keep his Charpoy. It is, therefore, clear from the statement of the respondent made in cross-examination that he did not require the shop of the appellant for the purpose of business and, therefore, the claim made by the respondent in his affidavit that he wanted both the shops to run his business was negatived by his own statement in cross-examination. In these circumstances, it could not be held by the Rent Controller that the shop of the appellant was needed by the respondent for his personal use. The respondent had never made a claim in the ejectment application that he wanted the shop for the purposes of residence but his only claim was that he wanted the shop in question for the purposes of business but the Rent Controller has gone out of the way in allowing the shop of the appellant for the use of personal residence of the respondent. Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 does not allow that a premises should be ordered to be vacated for a purpose which was originally not contemplated by the appellant in the notice which he has given in the ejectment application that he had filed. This being the admitted position that the respondent had asked for the shop in question for the purpose of business but he was made to admit in cross-examination that he will use for the purpose of residence only, therefore, the need of the respondent was clearly negatived. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the ejectment order is hereby set aside.
H.B.T./M-59/K. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer