1993 PLP 1807 (CLC)

Syed Ansar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1989. This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the judgment passed on 5‑10‑1986 by the VIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (West). Respondent Muhammad Haleem is the landlord of the 1st Floor of the residential premises constructed on Plot No.C/496, Ashraf Nagar (Paposh Nagar), Karachi. He had inducted the appellant Syed Nasir Ali as his tenant of the said premises. On 1‑7‑1980 he filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the appellant seeking his ejectment from the said premises on the grounds of default and as he required it for the use of his children. This application was opposed by the appellant but ultimately the Rent Controller on the basis of evidence recorded by the parties came to the conclusion that appellant had not committed default in payment of rent while he allowed the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required by the landlord for the bona fide use of his children. It is against such a judgment that the present appeal has been filed. Malik Jamiullah, Advocate for the appellant contended that on the basis of the evidence brought on record it could only be that the landlord desired to have the premises for the use of his children. He had not been able to prove that he needed the premises in good faith. Under such circumstances order impugned in the appeal deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention he relied on cases reported in PLD 1968 Lahore 863 and PLD 1964 Peshawar

278. Syed Ansar Hussain, Advocate for the respondent argued that the order impugned in the appeal is based on evidence and finding in favour of respondent could not be disturbed by way of appeal. According to the scheme of section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the tenant can be evicted due to his omissions or commissions enumerated in sub‑clauses (ii) to (v) of subsection (2) of section 15 of the said Act or when the premises is required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building at the site or when the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or for occupation of his spouse or his children as provided by clauses (vi) and (vii) of that subsection. In order to deprive the tenant of his valuable rights of tenancy under the latter sub -clauses his eviction can only be ordered in cases when the landlord has strictly proved by clear and unambiguous evidence that the premises are indeed required to satisfy his need. The burden of proof in such cases lies heavily on the landlord. The landlord in his affidavit of evidence claimed that he needed the premises for his sons and daughters who are receiving education and need independent accommodation to ensure their individual privacy so that they can study properly. The actual number of his children, their ages and level of study has not been mentioned by him. In short the landlord has not led any substantial evidence which could enable the Rent Controller to properly assess his need the evidence recorded in the case is vague. In view of above I am inclined to hold that the respondent has not been able to prove that he needed the premises in question in good faith for his use in terms of section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance. The judgment of the Rent Controller is therefore Set aside and the application filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller is dismissed. H.B.T./N‑446/K Appeal accepted.