Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 359 of 1985, decided on 11th January, 1987.

---S.14--Retirement of landlord--Personal bona fide requirement--Plea of--Proof--Burden to prove good faith and bona fides of personal requirement in respect of rented premises on ground of retirement of landlord, being on landlord, such plea, held, could be established by landlord by adducing sufficient documentary evidence in support thereof--Where tenant had denied assertion of landlord, alleging that landlord was already living in his own house, mere assertion of landlord in his affidavit, held further, would not be sufficient to establish his personal bona fide requirement and tenant could not be dispossessed from premises on basis of such insufficient evidence.

Ismail Padhiar for Appellant.

A. Rashid for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th January, 1987.

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller No.9, Karachi, dated 21-4-1985, ordering the eviction of the appellant on the ground of personal bona fide need of the respondent.

The appellant was the respondent's tenant in respect of residential premises, bearing No. 335, Block 16, Federal "B" Area, Karachi, at a monthly rent of Rs.100. In May 1976 the respondent filed an eviction application against the appellant on two grounds, viz., default in payment of rent since July 1975 and personal bona fide requirement of the respondent. The plea of default in payment of rent failed to find favour with the learned Rent Controller. He, however, was impressed by the plea of bona fide personal requirement of the demised premises by the respondent, on the basis of which he ordered ejectment of the appellant from the same.

The only contention of Mr. Ismail Padhiar, learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent has failed to establish the bona fides of his requirement as no sufficient evidence was adduced by him in respect of such plea. Admittedly, no documentary evidence was produced by, the respondent apart from his affidavit wherein in paragraph No.5 he has stated that he had retired from Government service and was living in a rented house since his retirement and consequently the demised premises were required by him for his personal bona fide use and that of his family. However, the evidence in my opinion, was not sufficient as the law places burden of proof to prove bona fides in respect of personal requirement on the landlord. The assertions of the respondent in this respect have been denies by the appellant according to whom the respondent was living in his own house. Therefore, there is word of the appellant against the word of the respondent, which, in my view, cannot establish good faith or bona fides. A tenant cannot be dispossessed from the demised premises on the basis of such evidence.

I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the findings of the learned Controller in respect of the personal requirement of the respondent.

H.B.T./A-62/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.