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.869 of 1984,decided on 12th January, 1986.
---S.14--Ejectment--Bona fide personal requirement--Landlord filing application under S.14 of Ordinance, need not prove his bona requirement for personal use--Landlord, if, served a notice as under law, Rent Controller could not investigate bona fide requirement of landlord.
1983 C L C 468 ref.
P L D 1981 S C 118; 1985 S C M R 291; P L D 1981 Kar. 794; P L D 1983 Kar. 419 and P L D 1983 Kar. 468 rel.
Abdus Sattar for Appellant.
S. Inayat Ali for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1985.
The appellant filed an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for ejectment of the respondent from the shop on plot No.498/16 Federal ''B" Area, Karachi. The appellant is a widow. She served a notice dated 23-4-1983 calling upon the respondent to vacate the shop as she requires it for her personal bona fide use, but the respondent did not reply, and consequently an ejectment application was filed. The respondent in the written statement pleaded that the premises is not required bona fide for personal use of the appellant. The learned Controller framed the following issues:-
(1). Whether the applicant requires the premises in question by moving application under section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
(2) What should the order be
The learned Controller on perusal of the evidence came to the conclusion that personal bona fide need of the appellant has not been established as she is getting share from the business left by her husband and that she has no experience of carrying on business. Relying on 1983 C L C 468, the learned Controller dismissed the application.
The law is now well-settled that a landlord filing an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance need not prove his bona fide requirement for personal use. If he has served a notice as required under law, the Controller cannot Investigate the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. This is a consistent view, taken in P L D 1981 S C 118; 1985 S C M R 291; P L D 1981 Kar. 794; P L D 1983 Kar. 419 and P L D 1983 Kar. 468. In view of these judgments of the Supreme Court and our Court the impugned order passed by the Controller cannot be sustained. The order of the learned Controller is set aside, and the ejectment application filed by the appellant is granted. The respondent is allowed six months' time to vacate the premises.
M.Y.H./S-72/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