Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 324 of 1986, decided on 6th April, 1987.

‑‑‑Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 21(1)‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal bona fide requirement of landlord‑‑Stand taken by landlady in her notice served on tenant prior to filing of ejectment application and subsequently reiterated in ejectment application and in her affidavit in evidence to the effect that at the time she was living in rented house, therefore, she bona fide needed premises in dispute, for her own living alongwith her children‑‑Statement alleged to have been made by landlady in cross‑examination to the effect that house she was living in, was owned by her, held, appeared to be either due to typing error by omission of word "not" or was due to slip of tongue and in no way could be termed as conscious utterance on part of landlady‑‑Rent Controller rightly adopted the view of personal requirement and tenant was justifiably ejected on such ground.

P L D 1985 Kar. 624; P L D 1985 Kar. 639; P L D 1985 Kar. 714; P L D 1986 Kar. 84;P L D 1986 Kar. 199; 1984 C L C 2849; 1984 C L C 2851; 1984 C L C 2851; 1984 C L C 619 and 1985 C L C 1518 ref.

Dastagir G. Ghazi for Appellant.

Izhar Haider Rizvi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 6th of April, 1987.

By order dated 19‑4‑1986 made by IVth Senior Civil Judge Rent Controller, Karachi (West) in Rent Case No.2818/83 (New No.741/85) the appellant Farhatullah Khan has been directed to vacate the rented premises viz. a portion in a building of plot No.5‑2, 7/2, Nazimabad No.5, Paposh Nagar, Karachi on the ground of personal need of the landlady Mst. Basheeran, the respondent herein. The appellant has preferred this appeal against that order.

The landlady filed the rent case on the ground that she is a widow and she was living in a rented house alongwith her children, five sons and one daughter, and she needed the rented premises for accommodating her grown up children. She had also alleged default in payments of rent and unauthorized alterations and additions in the premises but those grounds were not pressed at the hearing of the case. The landlady/ respondent filed her own affidavit to assert that she bona fidely needed the rented premises for own living alongwith her children. The appellant/ tenant contended in the written statement as well as in the affidavit filed by him in evidence that the landlady/ respondent did not bona fidely need the rented premises for her living alongwith her children. The learned Controller came to the conclusion that the bona fide need advanced by the respondent/landlady was genuine and passed the ejectment order impugned in the appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent /landlady did not bona fidely need the rented premises for her own use. He had made reference to the statement of the respondent during the course of her cross‑examination that the House No. A‑497, Block H, Nazimabad, she was living in, was owned by her. He has alleged that an abortive attempt was made to under effect of this statement by making an application U/S 20(a) (b) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance read with Order XVI, Rule 6 and section 151, C.P.C. that her reply to the question was that the house she was living in was not owned by her but the word "not" was omitted due to mistake and her plea was accepted by the learned Controller. The learned counsel has also contended that the respondent /landlady has not established her bona fide need for getting the rented premises vacated. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in P L D 1985 Kar. 624, 639 and 714; P L D 1986 Kar. 84 and 199 and 1984 C L C 2849, 2851 and 619. The learned counsel has advanced the arguments that the respondent has recovered possession of another portion of the house which was in occupation of another tenant and she has constructed an upper storey over the ground floor and, therefore, her need to have the premises for their own living stands satisfied and she does not now need the rented premises in occupation of the appellant for their living.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the respondent /landlady is a widow and she has six grown up children‑ and she has been living in a rented house and she needs the rented premises for their own living. He has further urged that it was sheer slip of tongue that the respondent /landlady stated in cross‑examination that house she been living in was owned by her. He has made reference to the averments in the ejectment application and the affidavit of the respondent filed in support thereof and the notice served on the appellant before the filing of the ejectment case that she had taken the stand and informed the appellant/tenant that she was living in rented premises and that this fact was not controverted by the appellant. He has placed reliance on a case reported in 1985 C L C 1518.

The respondent /landlady has sought ejectment of the appellant/ tenant on the ground that she is a widow and she has been living alongwith her six children in a rented house and she needs rented premises for their own living. This ground was disclosed in the notice she had served on the appellant before filing the ejectment case and was reiterated in the ejectment application as well as in the affidavit filed in evidence by her. Of course, it is recorded in her cross‑examination that she had stated that she was residing in house No. A‑497, Block H, Nazimabad and the house was owned by her. In view of the stand taken by her in the notice served on the appellant the ejectment application and the affidavit filed by her that she was' living in a rented premised, this statement appears to be either due to typing error by omission of word "not" or it was a statement by her due to slip of tongue but she does not seem to have made this statement consciously and the learned Controller has rightly adopted that view. There does not seem any other flaw in the affidavit filed by the respondent /landlady justifying that she bona fidely needs the rented premises for her own living alongwith her six grown up children. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel no doubt lay down that the landlord /landlady should prove personal bona fide need by positive evidence. In the instant case, the statement made by the landlady seems to be trustworthy. The subsequent developments alleged to have taken place as contended on behalf of the appellant, although denied by the learned counsel for the respondent, do not save the appellant/ tenant from eviction from the rented premises on the ground of personal need of the landlady. Accordingly, the appeal cannot succeed. The order of the learned Controller is maintained and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

The appellant is allowed two months time to vacate the premises.

H.B.T./F‑12/K Appeal 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.