1987 PLP 1768 (SCMR)

Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. S . A . M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th April, 1987. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑ Petitioner Muslim Commercial Bank Limited is a tenant of the respondent in shop premises at Quetta at a rental of Rs.600 per month. The petitioner was sought to be evicted from the premises on the sole ground that the premises was required in good faith for the personal use of the landlord's son Muhammad Zahid. The petitioner resisted the application and contended that the plea of personal requirement was neither bona fide nor reasonable and that the landlord was motivated to evict the petitioner on account of the fact that the latter declined to acceded to the demand of the landlord to enhance the rent from Rs.600 to Rs.4,000 per month.

2. The learned Rent Controller found the fact of enhancement of rent demanded by the landlord to be proved but took the view that this circumstance was not sufficient to reflect upon the bona fide of the plea taken by the landlord. As the learned Rent Controller was satisfied that the requirement of the landlord for the use of his son was genuine, he passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, by judgment dated 17th May, 1986. Being aggrieved by the order of its eviction the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord demanded enhancement of rent by notice dated 27th October, 1983 and when the petitioner did not accede to the demand for enhancement of rent, the landlord served another notice dated 9th January, 1984, saying that the premises be vacated by the petitioner. It is pointed out that no mention as regards personal requirement was made in this notice by the landlord. Subsequently after serving a fresh notice to quit, the landlord filed the eviction application on 16th April, 1984. On these undisputed facts it was forcefully contended that the plea of the landlord was palpably mala fide as the action for eviction was resorted to only as a result of the refusal of the petitioner to enhance rent. In other words the submission was that when the landlord himself was prepared to continue the tenancy a few months before the filing of the eviction application, obviously the premises were not required for personal use in good faith.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the caveator has also strongly controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner anti has submitted that the mere fact of demand for enhancement of rent is no ground to on suit h landlord if otherwise his plea for personal requirement is sustainable on good evidence. In support of this submission reliance has been placed on Shamsul Islam Khan v. Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (1985 SCMR 1996) and Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Ch. Abdul Rahman (1980 SCMR 772). There is no doubt that in these two decisions this Court has laid down that the demand of higher rent and the increase of rent by the landlord by itself does not cast any doubt about the personal bona fide requirement if the factum of bona fide requirement is independently proved. However, on perusal of the two decisions we are of the prima facie impression that they are distinguishable on facts as in both these cases, the landlord had increased the rent in the past. In the facts of the present case the landlord first demanded vacant possession of the premises upon refusal of the tenant to increase the rent without asserting that the premises were required for personal use. Consequently we find some force in the contention that the assertion that the premises was required for personal use was in such a close proximity in point of time with the demand for increase of rent, that it militates against the plea of the landlord as a strong circumstance reflecting upon his bona fides. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have received sufficient consideration by the courts below and consequently we feel that the matter requires examination.

5. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500 Stay as already granted to continue. S.Q./M‑159/S. Leave to appeal granted.