Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.1098 of 1984, heard on 15th March, 1987.

---Ss.15 & 21r-Ejectment--Personal bona fide requirement Landlord having no other house and house where he used to live was a Government quarter--Order of Rent Controller allowing rent application was maintained--Held, it was right of every landlord to live in his own house.

1982 C L C 1695; P L D 1985 Kar. 624; P L D 1980 Kar. 223; 1982 C L C 1444 and 1987 C L C 333 ref.

---Ss.15 & 21--Personal bona fide requirement--Assertion of landlord on oath as to requirement of personal bona fide use of property, held, had to be accepted to be bona fide if consistent with his averment in application and not shaken in cross-examination.

P L D 1982 Kar. 770 rel.

Maqbool Ahmad Khan for Appellant.

Muzaffar & Co. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th March, 1987.

This First Rent Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 3rd October, 1984 of Xth Sr. Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi whereby the rent application has been directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent within two months.

A Rent Case No.5469/80 was filed by the respondent Mst. Aleema Khatoon on the ground of default and personal bona fide requirements. The rent controller decided issue of default against the respondent while rent application was allowed in favour of the land-lady on personal bona fide requirement. No cross appeal has been filed in respect of default in payment of rent by the landlady therefore I have to base my findings on issue of personal requirement only.

Before the Rent Controller appellant examined himself while from respondents' side her husband and attorney Syed Aijazul Hassan Rizvi was examined.

I have heard Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Khan for the appellant and Mr. Sohail Muzaffar for the Respondent.

It is contended by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Khan that there is only evidence of attorney of landlady which is not sufficient to prove the personal bona fide requirements as there are material contradictions in the rent application and the evidence so much so that in rent application it was mentioned that husband of the Respondent has been recently ejected from the Government Quarter No.150/3 Martin Quarter, Karachi. Whereas in power of attorney executed after filing the rent case i.e. 10-9-1980 the address as given by the respondent is same as in the rent application. Mr. Maqbool Ahmed's contention is that mere statement of landlord is not sufficient to prove the requirement. He has referred to the cases reported in 1982 C L C 1695, P L D 1985 Kar. 624, P L D 1980 Kar. 223, 1982 C L C 1444 and 1987 C L C 333. He has also produced photostat copies of two unreported judgments in F.R.A. No.165/84 and No.4/84. It is also contended by the learned counsel that evidence of the appellant has gone unchallenged which should not be believed. On this he has cited P L D 1981 Kar. 537.

Mr. Sohail Muzaffar argued that respondent has no other house in Karachi and her husband after retirement has been evicted from the Government quarter.

The relationship and rate of rent at Rs.200 per month is not disputed. The case of appellant is that respondent used to enhance rent from time to time which was the cause of filing the rent case. In the written statement appellant stated that respondent owns two houses in Gulshan-e-Iqbal and Nazimabad, respectively. He in his evidence only stated that respondent owns other houses in her name or in the name of her husband or her child in the city of Karachi. On one hand he had taken specific plea that at particular locality respondent own houses whereas the evidence is contrary to that effect. Moreover no documentary evidence has been produced in support of contentions. Mr. Maqbool Ahmad frankly stated at the bar that appellant has not been able to prove this point as such he does not press the same. Now it is clear that Respondent has no other residence and was living in the Government quarter which is not his property. The rent application was filed on 24-9-1980 whereas the power of attorney, dated 10-9-1980 much more before the filing of the rent case. The attorney who was examined has not been confronted on the plea that address in the power of attorney is given that of quarter quarter where they used to live. May be that after the execution of power of attorney on 10-9-1980 the respondent might have left the quarter and was residing at the new premises as stated in the rent application. However it is immaterial, the fact remains the same that they have no other house and house where they used to live was Government quarter. It is a well settled law that it is the right of every landlord to live in his own house. It has been held in case reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 770 that assertion of the landlord on oath as to the requirement of personal bona fide is to be accepted to be bona fide if consistent with his averment in the application and not shaken in the cross-examination. The Rent Controller has rightly allowed the rent application on this issue and his order calls for not interference. Consequently the appeal fails and eviction order of the Rent Controller is maintained.

M.Y.H./M-92/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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