Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 479 of 1985, decided on 17th December, 1986.

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-

Preamble-Aims and objects of the Ordinance.

The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is a piece of social legislation aimed at easing the problem of accommodation, protecting the tenants from evictions inspired by profit hunting motives and providing certain safeguards for the tenants and saving them from great expense, inconvenience and trouble. But the Ordinance does not completely overlook the interest of the landlord and has under certain conditions granted a clear right to the landlord to seek eviction on proof of grounds mentioned in section 15 of Ordinance. Thus, the Ordinance appears to have struck a just balance between the require ments in good faith on the one hand and great inconvenience and trouble of the tenants on the other.

(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-

- S. 15-Ejectment on ground of personal bona fide need of land lord-Evidence proved that landlord required premises for his use in good faith-Suitability for requirement of landlord, held, could nvt be questioned.

(c) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-

S. 15-Ejectment on ground of personal need-Premises leased only for one Year to tenant but she was in possession of wine over ten years-Need of premises by landlord to permanently settle down in the city where premises was located, by no stretch of imagi nation, held, be said to be a desire rather than a bona fide need for evicting tenant.

(d) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XV11 of 1979)-

-- S. 15(2) (vii)-Words "requires the premises in good faith" Meaning- "Desire" and "need"-Distinction-Requirement connotes that there should be an element of need.-[Words and phrases].

Section 15(2) (vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 uses the words "requires the premises in good faith" which undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between "desire" and "need" should undoubtedly be kept in mind but not so as to make even the requirement in good faith as nothing but a desire as the connotation of the term need or "requirement" should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained so as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get an order of eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Ordinance, which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. The import of the word requirement' is that if merely connotes that there should be an element of need.

Mirza A. Rasheed for Appellants.

Syed Inayat Ali for Respondent.

Date of hearing :15th October, 1986.

This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order-dated 4-5-1985 passed by the XVIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby he dismissed the eviction application filed by the appellant.

The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that Mrs. Rafiqa Khanum was the owner and landlady of property bearing No. 197, E/2, P. E. C. H. S. Ltd, Karachi and the respondent is tenant in respect of ground floor of the said bungalow on a monthly rent of Rs. 800 plus water, conservancy and electricity charges. The said landlady filed eviction application on the ground of personal requirement. During the pendency of the eviction application she died and the present appellants were brought on record. The respondent resisted the eviction application. The appellant No. 1 Dr. Ghulamullah filed affidavit-in-evidence in support of the eviction application. The respondent filed her own affidavit-in- evidence in rebuttal. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

The learned Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the eviction application vide order dated 4-5-1985.

The appellants being aggrieved .against the order dated 4-5-1985 of the XVIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi have preferred this First Rent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

Mr. Mirza A. Rashid the learned counsel for the appellant has Contended that the learned Controller failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the appellants oral as well as documentary and came to an erroneous finding.

On the other hand Mr. Syed Inayat Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order of the learned Controller is in accord with the evidence.

The appellants averred in their eviction application that the appellant No. 1 wanted to settle permanently in Karachi and as such the appellant No. 1 required the premises in question in good faith for his own occupation. The appellant No. I filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in support of the eviction application. The appellant No. 1 stated that he is a scientist and he retired as a Director from the Biological Research Institute, Peshawar. He also stated that "actually 1 want to carry out my scientific pursuit in collaboration with other scientists. I am scientist". He further stated that "I say that I want to come to Karachi to settle here for my further pursuit and the premises on ground floor is suitable to my require ment. I say that I need the present premises for my personal bona fide occupation and use in the good faith". The appellant to a suggestion in cross-examination replied that "I am well-reputed scientist and I shall start my research work independently in own bungalow at Karachi. The premises in case are residential house but is suitable for the purpose of my job that is research work". The appellant stated in his cross-examina tion that they never requested for an increase in rent during the last five years.

As against the above evidence, the respondent stated in her affidavit in-evidence that "I deny the allegation that the premises in case is required in good faith for personal use as alleged or otherwise and I say that the reasons advanced in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application for eviction and deposition are false, fabricated and unfounded." The respondent to suggestion in cross-examination replied "it is incorrect to say that Chaudhry Ghulamullah wants to establish his science laboratory in the premises and needs the premises for that purpose but the fact is that he had asked me for enhancement of rent and on my refusal, he has filed this case". The respondent admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention in her affidavit this fact of demand of enhancement of rent.

The appellant No. 1 stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that he is a scientist and he wants to carry out his scientific pursuit in collaboration with other scientists. The appellant No. 1 to a suggestion in cross-examina tion replied that "I am well-reputed scientist and I shall start my research work independently in my own bungalow at Karachi. The premises in case are residential house but is suitable for the purpose of my job i. e. research work. It is therefore, proved by the evidence-discussed abovef that the appellant required the house for his research work. The Controller has not at all discussed this part of the evidence of the appellant, but at the same time being impressed by the fact that the appellant No. 1 had a strong desire to occupy the premises in question and use it for his research work. Thereafter, the Controller appears to have lost himself in wilderness by entering into a discussion about its suitability for research pursuit. Here the Controller has misdirected himself. If the appellant No. 1 had proved that his necessity was in good faith, that the present premises which belonged to them were required for research pursuits, there could be no question of its suitability or not. In fact the irresistible inference which could be drawn from the facts is that the premises are suitable for the purpose.