Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.741 of 1984, decided on 13th November, 1985.

---Ss.15(2)(vii) & 21(1)--Ejectment of tenant--Personal bona fide requirement--Proof--Flat adjacent to disputed premises which wan already got vacated by landlord by filing ejectment application admittedly was lying vacant for years without any reason- -Landlord having already vacant flat at his disposal, held, had failed to prove his bona fide requirement in respect or--disputed premises in circumstances.

Rashid Tariq Khan for Appellant.

Munawar Ghani for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.

This First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance) has been filed against the order dated 15th July, 1984 of Xth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi-4 whereby he allowed the Rent Case No.3649 of 1978 and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of premises to the respondent within one month from the order.

2. On 9-8-1978 respondent filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in which it was prayed that premises are bona fide required for the personal use of Mazhar Masood whose marriage was postponed for want of separate accommodation and one of the grounds as given in the application was that appellant never paid water and conservancy charges. The appellant Muhammad Ibrahim filed written statement in which he stated that respondents are residing in rented flat containing four big rooms which is sufficient to accommodate all the applicants and that respondents were demanding increase in monthly rent OIL' premises from Rs.200 p.m. to Rs.400 p.m. and also deposit of Rs.10,000.

3. The Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed following issues:-

(1) Whether the opponent /appellant is wilful defaulter in payment of water and conservancy charges

(2) Whether the applicants require the premises in good faith for their own use

(3) What should the order be

4. One of the respondents Mazhar Masood filed his affidavit-in- evidence and stated that he is co-owner of premises as Plot No.413/C, Block-2 in the Central Commercial Area, PECHS, Karachi alongwith other applicants and appellant is his tenant at the rate of Rs.200 p.m. He has also stated that they are living in the rented Flat No.8, Burjor Mansion, Garden Road, Karachi which is insufficient to accommodate them and they in not have any house other than mentioned hereinabove. As such, they are in need of the premises for their own use. He has denied to have demanded increase in rent or some advance. In his cross-examination he has stated that all the respondents are living jointly in Burjor Mansion, and there is one other tenant also resides besides the appellant in another residential portion. Again stated that there is no tenant in that portion but the same is lying vacant.

5. Appellant Muhammad Ibrahim stated in his evidence that flat situated on first floor of the opponent is lying vacant for the last two years and nobody is residing there. Therefore, respondents are not in need of accommodation. He further states that real intention of respondent is to get increase in rent upto Rs.400 per month and advance If Rs.10,000 for the continuance of tenancy. On his refusal the ejectment application has been filed.

6. The learned Rent Controller in his order clearly stated that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent did not press the issue regarding wilful default in payment of water and conservancy charges. Therefore, now it is to be seen whether respondents require the premises bona fide for their personal use. The initial case set up in 1978 by the appellant was that one of the respondents Mazhar Masood wanted the premises as his marriage was being postponed but in his evidence has not stated that he is in need of the premises. On the contrary he stated that they do- not have any other house. In his cross-examination it is categorically admitted by Mazhar Masood that one of the flat is lying vacant. When the attention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent was invited to this piece of evidence to which he stated that this flat is still lying vacant as a whole family wants to shift jointly and occupy two flats and they are waiting for the eviction of premises in dispute. He also submitted that the respondent got that flat vacated after the filing of this case. The main question is whether respondents need the-accommodation bona fide. The statement of respondent Mazhar Masood is self contradictory and no one has been examined to support his contention. Moreover, the flat adjacent to the disputed premises is lying vacant since 2-3 years ago. In case they get the disputed flat vacated the family will be divided and will reside in two flats separately. There is no reason to keep one flat vacant for years in case they actually require the accommodation. In my view the respondent has failed to prove bona fide requirement of the premises. Therefore, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller, consequently, the rent case also stands dismissed.

H.B.T. M-58/K Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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