1989 PLP 246 (SCMR)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑The petitioners who are tenants of the respondent are aggrieved by an order of eviction passed against them at the instance of the respondent on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The question raised in this petition is whether in the circumstances of the case as appearing from the evidence on record the landlord's plea for personal requirement was not in good faith.

2. The learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the respondent on the ground that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, the respondent had let out 20 flats in a building owned by him, which had fallen vacant from time to time and did not occupy any accommodation so available to him. However. on appeal a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court reversed the finding of the Rent Controller solely on the ground that it was the prerogative of the landlord to choose any tenement for his own occupation. As regards the factum of letting out 20 flats during the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Judge took the view that only the receipts of the tenements were changed from the name of previous tenants in favour of the new tenants from which the learned Judge inferred that no taint is cast on the good faith of the landlord because there was no evidence that the previous tenants of such tenements had surrendered the possession to the landlord before the same were transferred in favour of the new tenants. Accordingly by his judgment dated 19th May, 1987, the learned Single Judge of the Sind' High Court directed the eviction of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge urged that the learned Judge had seriously misread the evidence and fallen into error of law in holding that the admitted facts did not reflect upon the bona fides of the plea for personal requirement set up by the landlord.

4. The contention is of first impression. In view of the admitted facts that tenancies of 20 tenants in the building owned by the respondent were transferred in favour of new tenants, implies that the landlord was a party to these transactions and could well acquire possession of the required accommodation for his personal use in those flats, unless he explained the reasons why they would not be suitable for his purpose. Indeed in law the termination of one tenancy and p the beginning of another tenancy is tantamount to surrender of possession fin favour of the landlord irrespective of the intervening time period. In any case we are, prima facie, of the opinion that this fact was material and did seriously reflect upon the bona fides of the landlord's claim, which was not adequately dealt with by the learned Single Judge.

5. We accordingly accept the petition and grant leave to appeal. The petitioner shall furnish security for costs in the sum of Rs. 2,

500. The order of eviction shall remain suspended until the disposal of the appeal subject to the regular payment of rent by the petitioners. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record and it will be, open to the parties to file additional documents if any. M.Y.H./H‑55/5 Leave to appeal granted.