1984 PLP 755 (CLC)

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑ ‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑Ejectment‑Bona fide personal requirement‑Land lady not coming to Court with clean hands and suppressing material fact in rent application filed on ground of bona fide requirement, held, puts Court on guard and Court may in such cases appraise evidence of landlady more cautiously or with suspicion that land lady is capable of misleading Court‑Landlady though not a widow at time of filing ejectment petition yet making an averment that she was a widow and attempting to gain sympathy of Court by making, misrepresentation=Such fact, held further, will reflect on her bona fide. (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑ ‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑Ejectment‑Bona fide personal requirement‑Con tention that landlady was able to prove her personal requirement by examining her son‑in‑law who deposed that she alongwith her children was putting up with him‑Averments in ejectment applica tion revealing that landlady was putting up with some relation and not with her daughter‑Averments in application, held, vague in respect of proof of bona fide personal requirement‑Dismissal of ejectment application by Rent Controller upheld. (c) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑ ‑‑Ss. 21 & 14‑Ejectment‑Personal requirement‑Landlady be coming widow during pendency of appeal‑Such ground held could not be pressed in appeal‑Landlady may file a fresh case under S. 14 for ejectment on that ground. This is an appeal against the order, dated 20th October, 1982 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sukkur, in Rent Application No. 10 of 1981, dismissing the appellant's application filed on the ground of her personal requirement. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the present appellant filed the above rent applica tion on the ground of her personal requirement. In the rent application, it was pleaded that the appellant was a widow and that she was putting up alongwith her children with some relations. The above application was resisted by the present respondent and it was inter alia pleaded that the appellant's husband was very much alive and that the applicant was not a widow. The learned Rent Controller after hearing of the partied framed the following two issues :‑ (1) Whether applicant requires the premises for her bona fide personal use ? (2) What should the order be ? The applicant examined herself and her son‑in‑law Rana Muhammad Akram. In her cross‑examination, she has admitted the fact that her husband was very much alive and further admitted that she has only 25 paisas share in the suit house. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the above application on the ground that she had made mss‑statement of fact in the rent application, which has adversely. reflected on the personal bona fide requirement of the appellant and, that the appellant failed to prove her personal bona fide requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Fazal Din, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that since the appellant had not applied under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as a widow, the above appellant's mss‑statement in the rent application that she was a widow was not a relevant factor as otherwise she was able to prove her personal requirement.

3. In my view a party who approaches the Court should come with clean hands. It is true that a single incorrect averment or suppression of a material fact in a rent application filed on the ground of .personal requirement may not be fatal to the application. But when a landlord seeks ejectment on the ground of his personal requirement, the law enjoins him to prove his bona fide. Any fact which may adversely reflect or casts doubt on his bona fide will put the Court on guard and the Court may in such a case may appraise the evidence of the applicant with more cautiously or with suspicion that the party is capable of misleading the Court: In my view, when a married landlady, though not .a widow, makes an averment in the rent application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement that She is a widow, she in fact attempts to gain sympathy of Court by making misrepresentation. This will be a fact, which will adversely reflect on her bona fide.

4. As regards the contention of Mr. Fazal Din that the appellant was able to prove her personal requirement as she has examined he son‑in‑.law, who has deposed that factually the appellant alongwith her children was putting up with him, it may be observed that in the rent application the averment is somewhat vague as it has been averred that the appellant alongwith her children is putting up with some relations not with her daughter.

5. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that factually during the pendency of the above proceedings the appellant's husband bas‑expired, it will suffice to observe that appellant may file fresh case under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance f, 1979, but she cannot press this ground into service in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to Cost. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.