P L D 2001 Karachi 159 (PLP)
GHULAM NABI — Appellant Versus GHULAM SARWAR — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2001 Karachi 159 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI — Appellant Versus GHULAM SARWAR — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2001 Karachi 159 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2001 Karachi 159 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2001 Karachi 159 (PLP) (GHULAM NABI — Appellant Versus GHULAM SARWAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(t)(i) & 15(2)(ii), (vii)
Landlord and tenant, relationship of-- Default in payment of rent
Bona tide personal need of landlord
Tenant denied existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and claimed that he himself was owner of premises in question
Tenant could not prove by oral or documentary evidence that he was the owner of premises in question, whereas landlord had produced tenancy. agreement signed by the parties showing that tenant had taken premises on rent from the landlord
Attesting witnesses of said agreement examined before. Rent Controller had unrebuttedly supported the execution of the rent agreement-- Competent Authority had also issued certificate showing that premises belonged to the landlord
Tenant who had failed to show any ownership document in his favour, had also failed to pay rent to the landlord
Landlord had not only proved his ownership in respect of premises in question, but had also proved his personal bona fide need in respect of the premises
Rent Controller rightly ordered ejectment of tenant in the circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Where there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. POINT N0.2: Whether the opponent is defaulter POINT N0.3: Whether the disputed house is in personal bona fide use of applicant? POINT N0.4: What should the order be? The parties led their evidence and learned Rent Controller ultimately came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant was existing in between the parties. The appellant was defaulter in payment of rent and that the house in question was required to respondent for his personal bona fide use and consequently allowed the ejectment application. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Anwar Durrani for the appellant that the document showing entry in Town Committee record in favour of respondent is false and fabricated and that the rent agreement in between the appellant and respondent is also forged and false. It is stated that the house in question is entered in Town Committee record in his name but unfortunately the said documents have not been produced in the Court of Rent Controller. He stated, that the respondent is not landlord and there is no tenancy relationship in between the parties. I have seen the lower Court record and find that the respondent has produced tenancy agreement signed by the parties which shows that the appellant had taken the premises on'rent from the respondent at the rate of rent of Rs.1,
000. The attesting witnesses namely Ashiq Ali and Habibullah have been examined. Both of them have supported the execution of said rent agreement. Likewise the certificate dated 27-12-1994 has been issued by Town Officer, Town Committee Dokri which shows that the house in question belongs to respondent and is entered in the record in the name of respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any ownership document in favour of appellant but he states that if this rent application is remanded back to Rent Controller he can prove his ownership. I am sorry, I cannot accede that request as the competent Court has delivered its finding on the basis of record that the appellant is the tenant of respondent and that admittedly he is not paying rent to him. The respondent needs the premises in dispute for his personal use and the said piece of evidence is not rebutted by appellant. The rent appeal is meritless and is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed applications with no order as to costs. However, if the appellant claims to be the owner of the property he can avail his remedy before the proper forum if available to him under the law. The premises are to be vacated by the appellant within sixty days from the date of this order. H.B.T./G-333/K Appeal dismissed.