Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.66 of 1985, decided on l0th November, 1986

‑‑‑S. 15 (2) (vii)‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑Proof‑‑In absence of any detail either in regard to insufficiency of existing accommodation with landlord, or requirements of his children, landlord, held, would fail to support his case with any positive evidence in order to establish good faith‑‑Contradiction between averments made by landlord in his eviction application and his evidence‑‑Such evidence would not be sufficient for exercise of discretion in favour of landlord by Rent Controller.

A.Q. Malik for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: l0th November, 1986

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Xth Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 6‑1‑1985,directing the appleant to put the respondent in possession of the demised premises within three months from passing of the order. The appellant is the tenant of the respondent in respect of a vacant plot measuring 20' x 30', with half constructed room on which the appellant has put up a temporary roof. The rent of the premises is Rs.60 per month. The respondent filed an eviction application against the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent from 1‑4‑1980 to 31‑12‑1982, subletting, and personal bona fide requirement. The first two grounds did not find favour with the learned Controller, but in respect of the third ground, the learned Controller found that the case against the appellant had been proved and consequently, the appellant was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises.

In have heard only Mr. A.Q. Malik, learned counsel for the appellant only, as the learned counsel for the respondent has chosen to remain absent. However, the respondent is present in person.

The contention of Mr. A.Q. Malik, learned Counsel for the appellant is, that the learned Rent Controller has committed an obvious error while ejecting the appellant from the demised premises as the respondent has failed to establish that the premises were required by him in good faith for his personal use or the use of his sons. The learned Counsel has also taken me through the record of the case. In the eviction application, the respondent had only stated that his sons were young and some of them had got married and therefore, separate accommodation for them had become necessary. In his evidence, however, the respondent appears to have made a deviation from his earlier statement by stating that he had three sons, two out of whom were married, and the marriage of the third son was being held up for want of suitable accommodation. Whatever be the case, but this evidence, in my opinion, is not sufficient to establish the bona fides of the respondent's requirement as no details have been provided by the respondent either in regard to the insufficiency of existing accommodation with him or the requirements of his sons or son. The respondent has failed to support his case with any positive evidence in order to establish good faith. The evidence adduced by the respondent in support of his requirement is, therefore, not sufficient, for exercise of discretion in his favour by the learned Controller. I therefore, find that the learned Controller has committed a grave error while ordering the appellant's ejectment from the demised premises.

The findings of the learned Controller on the point of personal requirement of the respondent are, therefore, reversed and this appeal is allowed with costs.

H.B.T/5136/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.