1988 PLP 1412(2) (SCMR)

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Petitioner is tenant of land, on which according to him, he had constructed a Sawing Mill with structure for storing the timber. Respondent/landlady filed an application against the petitioner for ejectment on 30‑9‑1987 in the Court of the Rent Controller who, by order dated 30‑9‑1984 allowed the application and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the rented premises. Petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court but the eviction was maintained. Petitioner then approached this Court against the said order of the High Court. The petition was allowed and the case was remanded by this Court to the learned Rent Controller for framing an issue that the premises was required bona fide by the landlady. After the remand, the learned Rent Controller after recording evidence on the said issue, came to the conclusion that the respondent /landlady did not require premises in good faith and as such dismissed the application. Respondent then filed an appeal before the Baluchistan High Court which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 28‑6‑1987.

2. Learned counsel's contentions are that the petitioner/ tenant had invested huge amount in the construction of a timber factory consisting of Sawing Mill and structure for storage of the timber; that he had been paying the rent regularly which was increased from time to time; that the petitioner cannot be ejected because he had raised the aforesaid constructions with the consent of the respondent; that the landlady had raised contradictory grounds while seeking ejectment of the petitioner averring that she wanted to distribute the land among her children who will build houses or shops on their respective portions of the land. On the other hand she stated that she has limited means of support and, therefore, wanted to carry out construction for increasing her income.

3. We have examined the evidence on the point and gone through the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties. In paragraph 3 of the application for ejectment the landlady averred that the land in dispute is located in a commercially important area; that she has limited source of income and hence can hardly meet both ends and ` that she bona fide requires the land in question to increase her income. In addition to this she desires to construct building on the said premises in such a manner that after her death, share of each heir is specified leaving no bone of contention between them. The learned Acting Chief Justice of the High Court has dealt with this point in great detail in the impugned judgment, in the following words: "The learned Rent Controller gave a positive finding that the land in dispute is a rented land, and, therefore, the Court has jurisdiction. This finding of the learned Rent Controller was confirmed by the High Court and not disturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, it has been conclusively determined by all the three Courts that the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction and the plot, in dispute, is a rented land. No such objection was taken before the learned Rent Controller, and no evidence was led in support of such contention." Furthermore, regarding the question ‑of bona fide requirement the learned Acting Chief Justice observed as under: "The minor contradictions pointed out by the learned Rent Controller do not go to the root of the case so as to demolish the entire superstructure of the appellant's case. Whether she wants to divide the property before the construction or after the construction is immaterial. No adverse inference can be drawn from the statement of the attorney of the appellant that the appellant wants to construct four shops because the construction has to be raised in accordance with the sanctioned plan of the Municipal Corporation. The minor contradictions here and there would not non‑suit the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the case of Haji Maula Dad v. Haji Syed Sardar Khan, reported in P L D 1972 Quetta 39." We agree with the above observation of the learned High Court and find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Leave refused. Petition dismissed. M.I./G‑1021S Petition dismissed.