1996 PLP 1055 (SCMR)
WASIM AHMAD ADENWALLA‑‑‑Appellant Versus Shaikh KARIM RIAZ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1055 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah |
| Parties | WASIM AHMAD ADENWALLA‑‑‑Appellant Versus Shaikh KARIM RIAZ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1055 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1055 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1055 (SCMR) (WASIM AHMAD ADENWALLA‑‑‑Appellant Versus Shaikh KARIM RIAZ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iqbal Kazi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- A.H. Lakho, Advocate Supreme Court with Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st December, 1993.
- Iqbal Kazi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- A.H. Lakho, Advocate Supreme Court with Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 27‑9‑1992 passed in FRA 35/91). (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention of tenant that plea of personal requirement of landlord was not bona fide for a flat being owned by landlord was available to him in the same premises which the landlord did not occupy. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑‑Landlord owning different premises in same locality‑‑‑Landlord would have the option to c1loose the house or place where he wanted to reside‑‑‑Where landlord chooses to reside in his own house which was located in locality which was much inferior and congested to the place where he was residing on rent, his such action could not be termed as mala fide. (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑‑Plea that one portion of building (flat) was vacant and landlord did not occupy it was factually incorrect‑‑‑In one of the flats landlord's father was residing and after his death landlord's brother was in its occupation‑‑‑Other flat was in occupation of a person with whom landlord had undergone litigation and ultiolately accepted him as tenant of the same during pendency of ejectment proceedings‑‑ There was, thus, no question of vacant flat and handing it over to any other person‑‑‑Plea of personal requirement was, thus, not mala fide in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.
The appellant with the leave of this Court has challenged the judgment of the High Court passed in first rent appeal filed by the respondent whereby ejectment order has been passed against the appellant.
2. The facts as noticed are as follows:-- The respondent had filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from ground floor premises of property bearing No.25/1, J.M. 381, Sehwani Colony, Karachi. The grounds pleaded were default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement as the respondent was residing in a rented house on lease which was to expire in February, 1989 and his landlord had served a notice demanding vacant possession. It was also pleaded that his son had completed education and was about to be married. The appellant denied the allegation that he was a defaulter. It -was further denied that the respondent required the premises bona fide and in good faith. It was pleaded that the respondent had shifted to a house in the Defence Housing Authority and did not think it fit to stay in the disputed premises. He further pleaded that the respondent did not think it fit to occupy the premises in possession of Farhat, another tenant against whom ejectment case had been filed, but he compromised on payment of increased rent. The learned Controller dismissed the ejectment application. However, in appeal the plea of personal requirement was accepted and the petitioner was ordered to be ejected.
3. Leave was granted to consider the contention that the plea of personal requirement was not bona fide as a flat was available in the same premises which A the respondent did not occupy. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent is residing in a bugalow in Defence Housing Authority and that it is not imaginable that he would shift in a small house in a dingy and congested locality. He further contended that during the pendency of the case a portion of the house, which was an independent apartment, fell vacant, but the respondent did not occupy it and rented it out to the tenant. On the basis of these facts it is contended that the respondent's need is neither genuine nor bona fide. So far the first contention is concerned the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent is residing in a rented house with his son in the Defence Housing Authority. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant therefore does not hold water because firstly, the respondent is not residing in his own house, but is residing with his son who has rented out a house in that area, and secondly, in these circumstances if a landlord chooses to reside in his own house which may be in a locality which is much inferior and congested than the place where he is residing on rent, it cannot be termed as mala fide. It is the choice of the landlord to choose the house or the place where he wants to reside.
4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant must find support from the evidence. From the evidence it is clear that one portion which fell vacant was occupied by Farhat who claimed to be the legal heir of the deceased tenant. There seems to be litigation between the parties and according to Mr. Iqbal Kazi, Farhat had filed a suit against the respondent which was compromised and ultimately the respondent accepted him as a tenant. The second apartment or portion according to the evidence was occupied by the father of the respondent and after his death his brother has been residing in it. Therefore, none of the portions can be said to have been lying vacant during the pendency of the case. The fact that the respondent has compromised with Farhat will not be considered a mala fide act on the part of the respondent particularly, as both the parties had entered into litigation and at no point of time the said portion was vacant and had been handed over to Farhat. We therefore find no force in the appeal which is dismissed. The appellant is allowed to vacate the disputed premises within four months from today. He shall continue to deposit the rent for the period, he remains in occupation of the premises up to four months. In case he fails to vacate the disputed premises and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent on expiry of four months, writ of ejectment shall be issued against him without notice. A.A./W-142/S Appeal dismissed.