Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 912 of 1982, decided on 11th November, 1981"

‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 21(1)‑‑Ejectment on ground of retirement of landlord Ownership and occupation by landlord of premises other than rents one‑‑Proof‑‑Gas and electricity bills being not title documents, such bills, held, could not establish ownership of premises‑‑Finding of Rent controller that landlord was occupying his own house other than disputed one, simply on ground that bills of other house were being issued in name of landlord, was not justified, but was liable to be set aside.

‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 21(1)‑‑Ejectment on ground of retirement of landlord‑ ownership of landlord of premises other than disputed one‑‑Proof‑ Landlord in his ejectment application mentioned his residential address of house belonging to his late father‑‑Such house although was mutated in name of landlord's brother after death of his father, but in normal course landlord would have inherited share in that house‑‑Mere statement of landlord that he had given address of his brother in ejectment application, held, would not be sufficient to explain that he was not residing in house in which he had his own share, especially when landlord had not specifically denied such factual position‑‑Case remanded to decide afresh after holding enquiry about ownership of landlord in respect of other properties.

Allauddin Ansari for Applicant.

Zafar Hadi Shah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1986.

The appellant filed application under section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance for ejectment of the respondent from House 55/1 Muslim League Quarters, Nazimabad, Karachi. The main ground pleaded by the applicant was that he was to retire from Government Service and attain the age of sixty years within six months. He requires the disputed premises bona fide for his use and that of his family members. After service of notice the ejectment application was filed.

The respondent denied the allegations made by the appellant and pleaded that he is occupying a residential premises owned by him. It was also alleged that he is occupying a house in Usmania Society owned by him.

The learned Controller held that the appellant owns and is in occupation of House No. 70 Usmania Society and dismissed the ejectment application.

Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties it may be mentioned that the respondent's objection to the validity of notice and its consequences stand overruled by the judgment of the Full Bench passed in this appeal.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that at the time of filing ejectment application the appellant resided and owned House No. 53/4 Muslim League Quarters, and thereafter he is occupying his own house viz. 70, Usmania Society. The learned Controller held that House No. 70 Usmania Society is occupied and owned by the appellant. This finding has been challenged by Mr. Ansari. The only evidence for such finding is that gas and electricity bills are issued in the name of the appellant. Those bills can hardly prove ownership. It is not uncommon that sometimes with the consent of landlord tenants obtain such connection in their name. Such bills are not title documents and independently cannot establish ownership of the house. There is no other evidence' to justify this finding which is set aside.

The controversy however does not rest here. Mr. Zafar Hadi Shah the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant is the owner and was in occupation of House N0.53/4 Muslim League Quarter at the time of filing the ejectment application. In this regard reference has been made to the address of the appellant mentioned in the ejectment application and the statement of the appellant that the house belonged to his father who died in 1970 and he is one of his legal heirs. In the normal course the appellant would have inherited a share in this house. Mere statement of the appellant that he had given the address of his brother is not sufficient to explain that he was not residing there. More so as no specific denial has come from the appellant. Mr. Ansari has referred to a letter of mutation dt. 15‑12‑1976 to establish that House No.53/4 Muslim League Quarter stands in the name of the appellant's brother. Mr. Zafar Hadi Shah has objected on the plea that it was never produced in evidence and was filed with the written argument submitted by the appellant. This factual position cannot be denied.

Considering the nature of controversy, if the mutation letter is taken into consideration it is likely to materially affect the decision. In these circumstances it will be just and proper to remand the case for further inquiry and determination by the Controller. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Controller to hold inquiry on the following question.

Whether the applicant is the owner of House No. 53/4 Muslim League Quarters Nazimabad, and House No. 70 Usmania Society, Karachi.

After recording evidence of the parties on the above issue the Controller should decide the ejectment application according to law.

H.B.T./5132/K Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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