Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. S‑107 of 1986 decided on 18th November 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), Ss. 17(4)(b) a 24‑‑Eviction on ground of personal requirement‑‑Bona fide proof‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent findings of two Courts below that premises in dispute were required by landlord in good faith for personal need, being based on evidence on record and no ground having been established by tenant to interfere with such finding‑‑High Court declined to upset such concurrent findings in its constitutional jurisdiction.

‑‑‑S. 17(4)(b)(ii)‑‑Eviction from commercial premises on ground of personal requirement‑‑Where tenant had failed to establish that landlord was occupying any other building in vicinity of area concerned for purpose of his business at relevant time, contention of tenant that only such landlord would be competent to file eviction application under S.17(4)(b)(ii) who was doing business of his own since building in question was commercial one, held, was completely misconceived.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Ground not taken earlier before two Courts below, held, could not be permitted to be taken for first time in constitutional petition before High Court.

Munawar Ghani for Petitioner.

Ghulam Murtaza Malik on pre‑admission notice.

This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment, Karachi and the appellate judgment passed by the learned District Judge, South Karachi. Both have found that the premises in question comprising two godowns are required in good faith by the respondent No.3 namely Hockey Club of Pakistan and consequently, the petitioner who was a tenant of the aforesaid respondent had been directed to vacate the premises within 60 days of the passing of the judgment by the learned District Judge, i.e. 6‑7‑1986.

Mr. Munawar Ghani has raised a two‑fold contention. Firstly, according to him "good faith" has not been established by the third respondent in this petition and secondly, since the said respondent was not' doing any business, he was not competent to file the eviction application, since the building in question is a commercial building.

Both the contentions appear to be devoid of force. The two subordinate Courts on the basis of evidence produced by the parties have found that the premises were required by the respondent No.3 in good faith. I have seen that the reasons given by them are convincing and no grounds have been established by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned judgments. The premises in question, according to the third respondent, are intended to be used for construction of changing, service and kit rooms which are required for tournaments which are held frequently in Karachi on the astroturf play ground of the respondent. The evidence discussed by the subordinate Courts in the impugned order and the judgment respectively sufficiently support the respondent's plea. I, therefore, find no force in the first contention.

The second contention relates to section 17 (4)(b)(ii) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (XI of 1963). According to Mr. Hunawar Ghani only such landlord who is doing business of his own is competent to file eviction application under the abovesaid provisions of law since the building in question is a commercial building. The argument appears to be completely misconceived as what paragraph (ii) of subsection (4)(b) of section 17 of Act XI of 1963 requires is that the landlord in order to be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant, must not be occupying any other building in or in vicinity of the areas concerned for the purpose of his business at the relevant time. Since no such allegation, even now, has been made by the petitioner against the third respondent the argument is not tenable. In any case, the ground has been taken for the first time in this petition and the same was not raised earlier before the two subordinate Courts and, therefore,) the same cannot be permitted to be taken now at this stage.

For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is without force and it is dismissed in limine.

H . B . T . / K‑1 / K . Petition 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.