1994CLC902 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant after attaining age of 60 years by landlord‑‑ Landlord who let out premises before attaining age of 60 years, would be entitled to seek eviction of tenant after attaining age of 60 years even without establishing any bona fides. Syed Aminuzzaman for Appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. The case of the respondent‑landlady, seeking eviction of the appellant‑tenant, was that she required the disputed premises for her personal bona fide need, having no other accommodation of her own to live in and that, at such premises, she would also house her daughter, who had six children but had no independent residence. Besides, a plea of additions and alterations allegedly impairing the value or utility of the premises was also raised. On recording of evidence and duly examining the case the learned Controller has accepted the ground of personal need but rejected that of impairment of the value or utility of the premises. This appeal accordingly arises. In defence and in this appeal the case of the appellant‑tenant has been and is that the respondent‑landlady let out the premises to him somewhere in 1974, that she resides in the USA with her two sons, rarely coming to Pakistan and that there have been frequent changes of tenancy ever since 1974 of the first floor accommodation, the landlady always letting and reletting such without occupying it herself or letting her daughter occupy the same, who is proposed now to live with her. The daughter is shown to be putting up in the residential unit of her sister. Admittedly, the age of the landlady is 70 years now and at the time when the premises was let out she must have been around 54 years. In other 14 words, she had let out to tenant‑hold before attaining the age of 60 years ' making her entitled to seek eviction under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on attaining the age without establishing any bona fides. As it is the application was moved under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, leading to prolonged proceedings. Even so, the grounds urged to challenge the bona fides do not appear to be sound. In the first place, from the side of the landlady preference for the ground floor has been shown because of her age and state of health, being unable to climb stairs to the first 'floor. At any rate, as regards the alleged frequent changes of tenancy of the first floor premises the burden of proof was clearly on the appellant‑tenant, which he failed to discharge. Upon the evidence, the parties are not at one even as to the name of the current occupant‑tenant of the first floor and it cannot safely be said that there have been such frequent changes of tenancy, as alleged. Likewise, on the question of the landlady in effect putting up in the USA the burden was again on the appellant‑tenant and he could have called upon the landlady's witnesses to produce her passport to establish the allegation. This was not done. Alternatively, such passport could even be summoned under the provisions of Order 16, C.P.C. which is applicable to rent proceedings. The landlady was averred to be in Pakistan at all material times. Even this was not done. From the side of the landlady the relevant allegation has been squarely denied. On all these premises the landlady was able to establish her bona fides. As to the requirement itself it is again an admit(ed position that the landlady has no other accommodation of other own to live in and similar is the case of her daughter, who has six children and who is supposed to put up with the landlady to look after her at her present age and state of health. Even otherwise, the appellant‑tenant has disentitled himself to any discretion. It would appear that a notice was published in daily `Dawn', dated 29‑11‑1989, indicating that the property in dispute, was on sale and inviting offers. It is incomprehensible, and the learned Controller has so opined, that in a matter where eviction proceedings on personal ground are pending and also proceeding expeditiously such a notice would be taken out by a landlady within a matter of one year of the filing of the eviction case, which in these proceedings was instituted on 2‑11‑1988. As it is, a contradition was inserted by the landlady on 19‑1‑1990 in daily `Huriyat' disowning the issuance of such notice. Coupled with this is the. circumstance that the appellant‑tenant has been attempting to buy out the property himself, as per his own case. All this gives rise to a possibility that the appellant‑tenant may not have been altogether unconcerned with the issuance of notice dated 29‑11‑1989, moreso when this line of cross‑examination was adopted on his part before the learned Controller. In the event his case was that such a notice was actually issued at the instance of the landlady there was no reason why the record of daily "Dawn" could not be summoned to verify as to the signatory of the request, seeking publication of notice. In all of the aforementioned circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Controller ordering eviction. The appeal fails. However, in the interest of justice I would accord a further period of three months to the tenant to vacate provided that during such period he continues to pay due rents of the tenant‑hold, as before. H.B.T./M‑1907/K Appeal dismissed.