2016 PLP 1926 (SCMR)
Messrs CARPET CENTRE — Petitioner Versus MUSTAFA FARABI TAPU JAVERI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1926 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs CARPET CENTRE — Petitioner Versus MUSTAFA FARABI TAPU JAVERI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1926 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1926 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faisal Arab and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1926 (SCMR) (Messrs CARPET CENTRE — Petitioner Versus MUSTAFA FARABI TAPU JAVERI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 13.11.2015 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. S-887/2010)
S. 15(2)(vii)
Bona fide personal need of landlord
Premises required for setting up a photo studio
Contention of tenant that personal need of landlord was not established in as much as landlord had claimed that he was a professional photographer but had given a contradictory statement in evidence that he adopted photography as a hobby, and that the landlord was already running a photo studio
Personal need of landlord was duly explained in a very categorical manner by stating that he came from a family of jewelers but he had adopted the profession of photography and wanted a commercial premises to set up his own studio
Statement of landlord that he already had a studio, did not mean that such studio was in some commercial premises
No question in cross-examination was put to the landlord to suggest that he already had a commercial premises where he had set up a photo studio
In such circumstances the failure to establish in evidence mala fide on part of the landlord was sufficient to direct eviction of tenant from the commercial premises
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
Against the eviction order passed against the petitioner by the learned High Court on the ground of personal need of the respondent No.1, this petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the personal need of the respondent was not established in evidence inasmuch as the respondent has claimed that he is a photographer but he has given contradictory statement by stating that he has adopted photography as a hobby whereas he has also stated that he is a professional photographer. He added that in the evidence it has come on record that the respondent is running a photo studio. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgments of this Court reported in the cases of Muhammad Sharif v. Amjad Ahsan (1989 SCMR 522) and Muhammad Hafeez v. District Judge, Karachi East (2008 SCMR 398).
3. We have noticed that personal need of the respondent was duly explained in a very categorical manner by stating that the person for whom the premises is required comes from a family of jewelers but he has adopted the profession of photography and wants a commercial premises to set up his own photo studio. The statement of the respondent that he has a studio does not mean that such studio is in some commercial premises. No question was put in the cross-examination to suggest that respondent already has a commercial premises where he has set up his photo studio. In the circumstances, the failure to establish in evidence mala fide on the part of the respondent-landlord was sufficient to direct eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises. Hence, no case for interference by this Court is made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. MWA/C-11/SC Petition dismissed.