Bona fide personal need of landlord

Petitioners/tenants in their statements admitted that respondent/landlord after coming from abroad sought subject premises for personal need and the same was denied

Petitioners/tenants admitted execution of rent agreement with respondent/landlord

Rent Controller after recording evidence and hearing parties had given a decision against petitioners/tenants

Lower Appellate Court concurred with decision of Rent Controller and dilated upon issues in elaborate manner on the same premise

Judgments passed by two Courts below showed that matter between the parties was decided on merits based on evidence before them

High Court declined to interfere in eviction orders as there was no material illegality, infirmity or irregularity in judgments of Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ejectment petition would only be barred if application on same issue had earlier been decided between the parties on merits

If earlier eviction petition had been decided finally then Rent Controller should reject subsequent ejectment petition summarily

Where order of dismissal of earlier eviction petition was on technical ground or for non-prosecution without deciding matter on merits the it could not be a bar to file a fresh ejectment petition on the same ground

Landlord required demised premises to run his own business and he had personal bona fide need

Word 'party' did include legal representatives of the deceased and they would step into his/her/their shoes

Decree in eviction proceedings in favour of an applicant would entitle him to get possession of demised premises and upon his death same did not abate

Once a right had accrued in favour of decree-holder then after his death, same would automatically devolve upon his legal heirs and they had the right to defend the decree

Contract was always enforceable against the legal heir or the successor-in-interest of original party and unless a contrary intention appeared by the contract same did not abate with the death of a party

Landlord had got approved site plan and building permit for new construction and he had substantiated his version through credible evidence

Statement of landlord on oath was quite consistent with his averment made in the eviction petition which was sufficient for eviction of tenant

No condition could be imposed against right of landlord to seek eviction even with mutual consent of the parties

Right of property as a fundamental right had been protected

Right of ownership was superior than the right of tenancy

Findings recorded by the Rent Controller were based on correct appraisal of evidence

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Landlord has a superior right of possession and use of his property as against the tenant, but it has equally been settled that the tenant may not be deprived of his legal business and may not be shunted out from the said premises on mere assertion of the landlord.

Tenant challenged order passed by Rent Controller whereby he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises

Validity

Burden to prove that need of landlord was bona fide rather than mala fide was on the landlord

Landlord had tried to eject 22 tenants simultaneously on the ground of personal bona fide use

Landlord had not obtained permission from Municipal Committee for re-construction or for alteration in the building

Landlord's brothers could not start business in 22 shops which were admittedly separate units

Landlord's brothers were admittedly independent, they had settled their business abroad and rarely visit Pakistan

Names of the brothers, for whom the shops were required, were not mentioned in the eviction application

Property was mutated in the name of landlord's father but he had not filed the eviction application

Appeal was accepted, impugned judgment was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court could competently reverse findings of lower rent hierarchy if the same were found to be not in accordance with law

Availability of other shops / places could not be pressed by tenant to defeat landlord because the same was prejudicial to such preferential rights of landlord whereby landlord was to enjoy absolute prerogative to choose the best from available places

Petitioner was an institution which did not carry possibility of need of more space for adjusting students as well the staff

Premises was rented out to tenant only for purpose of running PCO (Public Call Office) but he by making breach thereof used the premises for purpose of Photostat machine, PCO as well as cold drink articles

Both the Courts below did not exercise their jurisdiction properly and fairly and High Court could undo such illegalities

High Court set aside concurrent orders passed by two Courts below and passed eviction order against tenant

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller while accepting eviction petition on the ground of default in payment of rent directed landlord to approach the civil Court for recovery of arrears of rent and outstanding utility bills

Validity

Rent Controller was empowered to determine rent of premises and pass order for payment of arrears of rent for the period of three years from institution of eviction petition

Tenant was bound to pay utility bills regularly and Rent Controller could pass order for payment of outstanding utility bills

Landlord was not entitled for any enhanced rent rather he should approach the Rent Controller under S.5 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Landlord was entitled for arrears of rent but not beyond the period of three years from the date of filing of ejectment petition

Civil Court was competent to try cases for recovery of arrears of rent and utility bills but jurisdiction of Rent Controller was not barred under law

Landlord had proved his entitlement for recovery of outstanding arrears of rent and utility bills but he was not entitled for enhanced monthly rent after every three years

Appeal was disposed of, accordingly.

Rent Controller passed order for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need of landlord but Appellate Court set aside the said order

Validity

Landlord had right to acquire and deal with the property in the manner best suited to him

Tenant had no right to disentitle the landlord of his right to acquire, deal and possess his property which right was otherwise guaranteed by Art. 23 of the Constitution

Landlord in eviction matters was only required to establish that his requirement was reasonable and same did not appear to be mala fide one

Initial burden in such eventuality would stand discharged when landlord having stepped into witness box reiterated on oath the reasonableness for such occupation

Such deposition of landlord would carry presumption of truth and strong evidence would be required to rebut the same

Landlord was only required to establish reasonableness of his need of demised premises for his and his family occupation

Landlord had reiterated the pleaded circumstances on oath which were not rebutted by the tenant

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were not sustainable, in circumstances

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention that landlady did not require the demised premises in good faith but wanted to sell as such purpose did not amount to bona fide need

Validity

Point of selling the premises by landlady was not taken by tenant before two forums below

No such intention was mentioned by landlady in her affidavit in evidence, wherein she had taken plea that she needed the premises to house her daughter

Landlady was not cross-examined on that point; tenant could not take refuge from something mentioned in the pleadings

Landlady was a retired ailing old lady as such her intention that she needed her daughter to be settled in demised premises, appeared to be coherent and reasonable

Owner could sell her/his property at any moment even without getting the same vacated

No doubt under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, rented premises could not be vacated solely on ground of selling the same but it was nowhere mentioned in the said Ordinance that after getting the premises vacated owner could not sell the same

Landlady had established her personal need

Findings of two courts below did not require any interference.

Tenant dispatched rent through money order but same was late for two months due to which landlord did not receive the same

Tenant had committed default, in circumstances

Demised premises was required to the landlord for his son who was jobless

Sole testimony of landlord with regard to choice of his property and personal bona fide need was sufficient for ejectment of tenant

No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents/landlords filed ejectment petition wherein they had claimed that tenant had committed default in payment of monthly rent and that the suit shop was required for their personal need

Appellate court accepted the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within a period of 3 months

Validity

Petitioner/tenant stressed that he had purchased part of suit property on the basis of registered deed which in fact was a withdrawal of any encumbrance relating to some part of suit property in possession of the tenant

Tenant had asserted his possession as a mortgagee

Assertions made by tenant showed that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Tenant had dragged landlords in unnecessary litigation on the oral pretext of being co-sharer

Case of tenant fell within the purview of Art. 115, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which estopped tenant from denying title of a landlord once he entered into possession as such

Constitutional petition by tenant was dismissed in limine.

Point for determination before the Rent Controller was the relationship of landlord and tenant over the demised premises

Tenant had no right to raise any objection with regard to ownership of landlord

Where tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stood proved, no other course was left for the Rent Controller but to order his eviction

Statement of landlord on oath which was consistent with his averment made in the eviction petition was neither shaken nor there was anything to contradict the same, such statement would be sufficient for acceptance of ejectment application

If landlord failed to get the possession of demised premises within stipulated period or re-let it to some one else within a period provided by law, tenant had right to recover the possession of said premises

No illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity was pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller

Tenant was granted two months' time to vacate and handover the demised premises to the landlord

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Landlord was duly cross-examined but no doubt or mala fide in the grounds so raised in the eviction petition were noticed

Genuineness of ground of personal need of landlord could not be doubted and he had discretion to select any of his property for his own business or for the business of his children

Question of personal use of demised premises had been established on record

Courts below had not given due consideration to the contentions of landlord

Bona fide requirement of demised premises by the landlord was doubted without any convincing reasons and sufficient grounds

Trial Court did not order to the tenant to deposit rent which was illegality when relationship of landlord and tenant had not been denied

Landlord had established the grounds of default and personal use of demised premises in a satisfactory manner

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside

Tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises within a period of two months

Second appeal was allowed according.

Petitioners/ tenants contended that landlords were continually evicting the tenants of subject property at their will and whim and ground floor alone of multi-storeyed subject premises was sufficient to run their small scale industry

Landlords/ company contended that as ground floor had no frontage so whole subject building was needed for viable functioning of their company

Validity

Admittedly, subject property was commercial premises so bona fide need of the landlords for such property was to be seen on the touchstone of test different from that of residential rented premises

Record revealed that landlords in the evidence of one ejectment proceedings stated that their initially occupied ground floor had no frontage but in the cross-examination of proceedings of other ejectment petition, main gate as entrance on the rear side of ground floor was admitted

When the prerogative of landlords was left to their desire when the ground floor was acquired, in order to acquire more space some confidence inspiring evidence was required

Prerogative, choice and whims could not be the only tool left to judge the bona fides of the landlords at later attempts when they failed to explain insufficiency of earlier portion

Landlords made no attempt to show any progress of their company which was hampered due to mere insufficiency of space

Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company/landlords was silent as to running of factory as its object

High Court observed that there were no aims and objects of the company enabling the landlords to evict tenants for the purpose of establishing industrial unit " for its own"

Bona fides, in circumstances, became missing ingredient to evict tenants on the ground of personal requirement

High Court set aside impugned judgments passed by the two Courts below, resultantly the ejectment applications were dismissed

Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

Appellant/tenant contended that it was a financial institution (Bank) and its long standing business would be uprooted in case of eviction and that it was not a bad paymaster and landlord had failed to prove his personal requirement

Respondent/landlord contended that several opportunities to vacate the demised property had been given to the tenant since long

Landlord produced confidence inspiring evidence for personal need to establish own business before the Rent Controller

Issue was framed regarding maintainability of the suit, as the objection was raised by the tenant that prior to the present application, the landlord had already filed an application against the tenant, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller in 2010 on non-prosecution and the same was not challenged before the next higher forum, as such, the application of the landlord was hit by the principle of res judicata

Rent Controller had rightly decided the said issue that earlier application was not dismissed on merits, rather it was dismissed for non-prosecution, since the earlier application was with regard to the non-payment of monthly rent as such, the present application was for personal bona fide requirement of landlord, and a fresh cause of action had accrued to the landlord and the landlord was at liberty to file application for ejectment at any stage for its personal bona fide requirement

Landlord produced three witnesses and also recorded the statement of attorney

Statements of all the witnesses supported the contention of landlord that the property in question was required for personal bona fide use of landlord

Averments of eviction application were supported by the statement on oath of the landlord

Contention of tenant was that its long standing business would be uprooted on account of ejectment, but the fact remained that rehabilitating a landlord, the tenant must make available premises for the owner and find out an alternate accommodation

In the present case, the tenant had enjoyed tenancy rights for almost thirty years, it could not claim a lifelong tenancy rights in the said property

View of the Rent Controller, on the face of record, appeared to be well-reasoned and in consonance with the spirit and object of law

Landlord had the right to pick and choose the property for his personal bona fide need

Tenant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment

Tenant was directed to vacate the premises to the landlord within six months

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Tenant could not raise any objection to the effect that since landlord had other shops in possession, he could not ask for the premises in occupation of the tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Tenant was directed to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent on or before 10th of each English Calendar month but she failed

Rent Controller struck off defence of tenant and she was directed to vacate the tenement

Validity

If a case was filed on the sole ground of default and the tenant on the first day of hearing had admitted his liability to pay the entire dues, Rent Controller on being satisfied that tenant had not defaulted on any previous occasion and default did not exceed six months would direct the tenant to pay all the rent on or before the date fixed and upon such payment he should reject the ejectment application

Where in addition to alleged default of six months if some or any other grounds had been raised by the landlord, eviction petition on payment of arrears of rent claimed on the first date of hearing would not be liable to be rejected

Default in payment of rent was not the sole ground for seeking eviction in the present case

Landlord had also pleaded his personal need as one of the ground for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises

Tenant's making good of the entire default on the first date of hearing was of no consequence insofar as landlord's right to continue with his case on the ground of personal need

Rent Controller could not reject the eviction petition on the basis of payment of arrears of rent in the present case

Law did not restrict the term 'personal need' to the wife and children only and same would include the family and/or children of siblings who would become dependent on the landlord

Tenant had committed default in payment of rent and he was defiance of tentative order

No illegality was pointed out in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Landlord contended that he required rented premises for showroom-cum-office for the products produced by him at his other office in the same building

Tenant denied bona fide personal need of landlord

Validity

Section 2(g) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 defined "personal use", to mean the use of premises by the owner thereof

Clause (vii) of subsection (2) of S. 15 of the Ordinance provided that the Rent Controller would make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within such period as may be specified in his order, if he was satisfied that the landlord required the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use

Landlord was relieved from the rigors of elaborate inquiry as to the good faith or his plea for requirement of the premises for personal use and court to put him in possession in the shortest possible time

When the landlord asserted that he required his building for his own occupation, Rent Controller would not proceed on the presumption that the requirement was not bona fide and it was not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else the landlord could adjust himself without tenant handing over the possession of rented premises

Landlord had right to acquire and deal with the property in the manner best suited to him and tenant had no right to disentitle him from his valuable right to acquire, deal and possess his property

Statement of landlord was sufficient to prove issue regarding bona fide personal need of premises by landlord

On the very specific point of landlord's bona fide need in the circumstances that he had an office in the same building, where landlord owned more properties in the same building, it was the landlord to decide as to which would be more suitable to his requirements

Neither, tenant nor court could sit in judgment over such a right of, and exercise of such a right by landlord

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Contention of tenant was that landlady did not appear in person before the Rent Controller and attorney was not authorized to file ejectment petition

Eviction petition was accepted by the Rent Controller

Validity

Landlord might apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of the rented building if he required it in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family

Landlady had competently filed the ejectment petition being owner of suit shop

Landlady had sued the tenant through her attorney

No restriction existed that landlord must appear in person to prove his plea of personal bona fide use

Appearance through attorney was as good as that of the principal

Requiring the suit shop by the landlord for his own personal need was to be considered and taken as requirement of the owner

Respondent was real son of the owner of the suit shop and had a legitimate and lawful interest in the premises

Landlady had proved through cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring evidence that premises was required to her for her personal bona fide use

Rent Controller had properly appreciated and analyzed the case evidence in its true perspective

No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the Rent Controller while allowing the eviction petition

Appeal was dismissed in circum-stances.

If a brother was working in the shop of his brother then it could not be said that the shop was sublet to him by his brother

To prove bona fide need of the landlord his statement on oath was enough, however, if it was found that the landlord had made some false statement in his statement on oath or that he had suppressed some material facts, then the statement of the landlord was to be minutely considered to decide whether the need of the landlord was bona fide

Choice to select a premises rested with the landlord and the tenant or the Court could not dictate to him as to which property would be best suited for his needs but at the same time it was also necessary that the landlord came to the Court with clean hands and laid full and true facts before the Court.

Place in question should be genuinely required by the landlord in good faith which had to be established from facts of a particular case

Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within a specified period

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Merely because the landlord had other tenements in the same area, would not disentitle him to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal need as it was for a landlord to select as to which of the tenements would be more suitable for his personal bona fide use.

Sole testimony of the landlord was sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need if the statement of the landlord on oath was consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application.

Jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as substitute of another appeal against the order of the appellate court, therefore, mere fact that upon perusal of evidence, High Court came to another conclusion would not furnish a valid ground for interference in the order of the appellate court, which was final authority in the hierarchy of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

When Supreme Court in the identical case relating to the tenement in the same building had given clear finding regarding personal bona fide need in favour of the landlord and tenant himself had asserted that his case was "on identical facts and ground" then he could not take a different stand and judgment of the Supreme Court was binding with full force.

Constitutional jurisdiction in such matters was very much limited and confined only to ascertain whether any provision of relevant statute had been flouted and law relating thereto had not been followed.

Plea of the tenant was that the demised premises had been declared as "heritage property" and any alteration therein was punishable under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 and the landlord had obtained no approval in this respect, therefore he could not use the premises for his "partnership business"

Matter of property being a "heritage property" had no concern with the tenant and such affairs were between the landlord and the authorities under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 and tenant could not escape eviction on such ground if otherwise he was liable to be evicted under the law.

Partnership concern did not fall within the definition of "person".

Landlord has to establish his personal need for requirement of suit property bona fide and long period of tenancy would not override such ground on plea that business of tenant has been flourishing.

No legal requirement existed to the effect that landlord must disclose nature of intended business or that he must possess experience in intended trade or business.

Statement of landlord on oath if consistent with the application for ejectment and not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord is bona fide.

When landlord had appeared in witness box and made statement on oath or in the form of affidavit in evidence as prescribed by law and it remained unshattered in cross examination, the same would be sufficient to prove the bona fide need of landlord

Landlord being owner of demised premises could not be deprived of his rights and interest to use his property, in a manner more suited to his requirement

No unreasonable restriction could be placed on exercise of right by landlord, which would offend the fundamental rights, guaranteed under Art. 23 of the Constitution.

Landlord filed eviction petition on the ground of his personal bona fide need which was dismissed by the Rent Controller but same was accepted by the Appellate Court ex parte

Validity

Rent Controller did not consider the plea of landlord with regard to his personal bona fide need who was entitled to have vacant possession of the premises

Mere lack of experience and not disclosing the nature of business intended to be established would not disentitle landlord from claiming ejectment of tenant

Landlord had prerogative to choose any premises for his business irrespective of its suitability

Attorney could appear and contest the litigation but he could not become the tenant nor was entitled to retain the premises

Landlord was entitled to be in possession of subject shop

Impugned order was passed on 21-12-2009 which despite knowledge of tenant was assailed after lapse of eleven months

Constitutional petition suffered from laches and liable to be dismissed.

Order of eviction would require satisfaction of Rent Controller that reasonable requirement of landlord would be met by occupation of premises

Eviction order could not be granted on vague allegations in eviction application

Plea of requirement would have to be supported by valid reason as to how such requirement was genuine.

For seeking eviction of a tenant from the rented shop, the only requirement of law is the proof of bona fide need by the landlord, which stands discharged the moment he appears in the witness box and makes such statement on oath or in the form of an affidavit in evidence as prescribed by law, if it remains unshattered in the evidence adduced by the opposite party

Law does not require that the landlord, in order to prove bona fides of his personal need, shall keep himself away from all sorts of income generating ventures or to keep himself idle as long as the fate of his ejectment case, is finally decided by the Court.

Provision of S. 17(9) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, affords sufficient protection to tenant in case landlord does not occupy premises after getting it vacated through eviction order under S. 17(2) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.

Assertion on oath by landlord that he required property in good faith for his personal use, was sufficient to accept his bona fides if such assertions were consistent with and in conformity to averments of application

Averments of application were in line and harmony with statement of landlord made on oath duly supported by statement of his witness, therefore, it stood proved that landlord required suit shop in good faith for his personal requirement

High Court set aside judgment passed by Rent Controller and ejectment order was passed in favour of landlord

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Ejectment application filed by landlord on the plea of bona fide personal need was dismissed by Rent Controller on the ground that it was premature as lease agreement between the parties subsisted

Validity

Unregistered lease agreement for the purpose of tenure would only be binding up to initial period of 11 months, whereafter relationship between parties was regulated by terms of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Tenant was a statutory tenant and tenancy was to continue on month to month basis

As specified period in lease agreement did not extend beyond initial eleven months, there was no impediment in the way of landlord from seeking eviction of tenant on the basis of bona fide personal need

High Court repelled contention of tenant that there was valid and binding agreement between parties, which was to inure till 31-5-2016

High Court set aside order passed by Rent Controller and remanded the matter for decision afresh on issue pertaining to personal bona fide need of landlord vis-à-vis demised premises

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Wife of the landlord-respondent required the lower portion of the premises, wherein three shops were located, for opening a Day Care Centre

Tenant-petitioner had not denied the fact that the premises was not required by the landlord-respondent for his own use and no malice had been found on his part and the pleadings of the landlord-respondent had remained consistent

Property of the landlord-respondent was his only property and there could be no question of having alternate place for opening the said Day Care Centre

Out of three shops, one shop was vacant and so far as the other two shops were concerned the other tenant had given an assurance to the landlord-respondent to vacate the said shop as and when required

Third shop was in occupation of the present tenant-petitioner and for opening a Day Care Centre the whole place was required

Premise that due permission for opening a Day Care Centre from concerned quarter had not yet been obtained hence no personal bona fide use had been established, was not correct

Tenant-petitioner was to prove that the said place was not required by the landlord-respondent for his or her personal bona fide use which in the present case had not been established by the tenant-petitioner; it was the prerogative of the landlord-respondent to choose among a number of places which would suit him or her best and no bar could be placed in that behalf upon him

Only criterion, which had to be fulfilled by the landlord-respondent so far as the cases of personal bona fide use were concerned, was to establish that such place was genuinely required by the landlord in good faith and such good faith had to be established from the facts obtaining in a case.

When landlord appears in witness box and makes statement regarding his personal bona fide need, which remains unshattered in cross-examination and unrebutted in evidence adduced by tenant, requirement of law on the part of landlord stands discharged

Even sole testimony of landlord is sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need, if statement of landlord on oath is consistent with his averments made in ejectment application.

Ejectment application filed by landlord was allowed by Rent Controller but Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal of tenants and dismissed ejectment application

Validity

Question as to whether demand made by landlord was reasonable and fair should be judged from the view point of landlord rather that tenants who were already enjoying fruits of property for almost three decades

Tenants could not be permitted to say that their long standing established business would be uprooted on account of their ejectment

Although tenants had enjoyed tenancy rights for more than 30 years, but they could not claim life-long tenancy rights in demised property

Tenants failed to point out any illegality in order passed by Rent Controller nor any misreading or non-reading of material evidence was pointed out

Findings recorded by Rent Controller were in accordance with law and evidence available on record

Findings recorded by. Lower Appellate Court were not in accordance with law or evidence on record

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of the Rent Controller

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Such need stands discharged, the moment landlord appears in witness box and makes statement on oath or in the form of affidavit-in-evidence as prescribed by law, provided it remains un-shattered in cross-examination and un-rebutted in evidence adduced by opposite party.

No unreasonable restriction can be placed on exercise of right of landlord which would offend fundamental rights guaranteed under. Art. 23 of the Constitution

Initial burden for landlord to prove bona fide is very light and court is required to consider that evidence adduced on behalf of landlord, which if unshaken and consistent with averments made by him in ejectment application, then the burden would shift to tenant to establish that claim of landlord is not bona fide

Real test whether premises is required for personal use is whether need is based on good faith

Such being question of fact and finding on the subject cannot be taken exception to unless it is shown that it suffers from violations of some fundamental legal principle in the matter of appreciation of evidence or 'omission of evidence or misreading of evidence.

Ejectment of tenant on ground of bona fide personal need for the reconstruction of the premises was allowed concurrently

Contention of the tenants (petitioners) was that the landlord did not have a personal bona fide need, as landlord planned to sell the premises; and that, the premises had been declared as "protected heritage" under Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 therefore, the requirement for reconstruction had become infructuous

Validity

Evidence of landlord's witness in relation to bona fide personal need could not be shaken during cross examination and tenants could not establish that the statement of the landlord made on oath was not consistent with the averments made in the ejectment petition

Landlord did not need to renew sanction for reconstruction of the premises every year during pendency of proceedings, as renewal was only a formality, and expiry of period of sanction for reconstruction would not frustrate the cause of action nor render same infructuous

Intention or efforts of landlord to sell out premises would not disentitle the landlord to subsequently seek eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need

Contention that the premises had been declared "protected heritage under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 had no force since that was a matter which had no concern with the tenants and such matter was between the landlord and the concerned authorities

Tenant could not escape eviction on such ground if otherwise he was liable to be evicted under law

Concurrent findings of courts below could not be interfered with

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Landlord's plea was that he along with his family wanted to shift from Canada in order to bring up his children in Pakistan in accordance with eastern culture of Islamic pattern

Proof

Appearance of attorney in witness box instead of landlord

Validity

Landlord, if unable to give evidence for genuine reasons, could appoint a person for such purpose

Landlord through power of attorney had authorized attorney to give evidence on his behalf

Tenant, during cross-examination could not shake statement of landlord's attorney on oath and established same to be inconsistent with averments made in ejectment petition

Ejectment petition was accepted in circumstances.

Ejectment application and appeal filed by landlord were concurrently dismissed by Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court on the ground that annual increase of rent mentioned in rent agreement was against law and landlord failed to provide detail of his bona fide requirement of premises

Validity

Restriction imposed on enhancement of rent under S. 9 of Sindh Rented Premises "Ordinance, 1979, by not more than 10% per annum and that too after three years, was on' "Fair Rent", which was to be determined by Rent Controller under S. 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance; 1979

No "Fair Rent" was determined by Rent Controller in the present case, therefore, conditions of S. 9 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were not applicable and agreement between parties was not inconsistent with the principal Statute i.e. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Tenant at all times was at liberty to move an application under S.8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for fixation of "Fair Rent", if he had felt that "Fair Rent" was not the one that was being claimed and liable to be paid by him

Clause of rent agreement pertaining to enhancement of rent annua4ly was not inconsistent thus operative

Tenant had defaulted while not tendering rent pursuant to the rent agreement between the parties

Landlord was , not required to give fullest possible description of his personal use of property, when it had been established that in pursuance of family expansion, the accommodation was requ5d accordingly

Good faith was a matter which related to attending circumstances of landlord and should ordinarily be accepted without imputing bad faith unless strong circumstances to the contrary were brought on record

Non­-mentioning of personal requirement in notice could not prima facie be enough to militate against personal requirement, which was otherwise proved

High Court set aside orders passed by two courts below and allowed ejectment application as landlord required premises for his personal bona fide need

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Statement of landlord/landlady on oath deposing personal need and in view of provisions of S.17(6) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, sufficiently safeguarding interest of tenant is sufficient to prove bona fides of landlord/landlady claiming occupation of residential premises.

Scope.

Mere presumption of `well settlement' in foreign country could neither be a ground for depriving of landlord to enjoy his ancestral property not even availability of certain other property could be made ground for disentitling him of relief or doubting his bona fide

It was idiosyncrasy, sweet-will and prerogative of owner to chose and propose which one of the properties, he preferred to live in, therefore, such issue was wrongly decided

High Court set aside the findings of Rent Controller and held that landlord required the premises for bona fide personal use and occupation of landlord, who was entitled to have his property

Statement of landlord was sufficient to prove issue regarding bona fide personal need of premises by landlord

High Court set aside the order passed by Rent Controller and allowed ejectment application filed by landlord

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Ejectment of tenant was sought on the ground of bona fide personal need of landlord, as he was living in the house owned by his son

Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenant and the same was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Landlord had only one house which was in the name of his son, therefore, the rented premises was required to landlord for his personal use as landlord had no other house to reside

Landlord proved that he required the house for his personal need

Landlord appeared as witness and produced one witness in support of his claim of bona fide need whereas tenant failed to shatter veracity of statement of landlord that he did not need the demised premises

Both the Courts below after properly appreciating evidence on record had concurrently decided against tenant and High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of concurrent findings of the Courts below

Findings of Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court were based on elaborate, careful and correct appraisal of evidence and did not suffer from any misreading

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two Courts below and maintained eviction order passed against tenant

Second appeal was dismissed.

Bona fide personal need of landlord-Proof-Landlord's affidavit in support of such ground, if remained unshaken or unrebutted by tenant, would be considered sufficient evidence in support thereof.