Bona fide personal need

2025 YLR 652 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6, 17 & 24Ejectment applicationChange of ownershipBona fide personal needDenial of relationship of landlord and tenant

Tenant alleged that he entered into a sale agreement with previous owner of disputed premises and asserted payment of consideration and possession

There was pending suit for specific performance between the tenant and previous owner

Subsequent owner after issuance of notice qua change of ownership filed an application under S.17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (Act), which was allowed by the Additional Controller of Rents

Contention of the tenant was that the Additional Controller of Rents had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rent matter

Validity

Section 6 of the Act had laid down a scheme, whereby, the Controller of Rents is appointed by a notification in Official Gazette for one or more cantonments

Appellant had not disputed that the Additional Controller of Rents had been appointed through notification as stipulated in law, thus, the plea of appellant was a repelled

Ground on which the application under S.17 of the Act was filed by the respondent was related to his personal bona fide need and not default in payment of rent

Subsequent landlord/respondent in the application as well as affidavit in evidence had categorically stated that he had purchased the demised premises for his personal bona fide use, which assertion had not been controverted by the tenant in cross-examination of respondent

Instead, respondent had been asked questions regarding the suit filed by the tenant against the previous owner

Nothing rebutting the ground of personal bona fide use of respondent, had been propounded by the tenant through any oral or documentary evidence, thus, the case of respondent on the ground of personal bona fide stoodproved

As regards the case of appellant that he had purchased the property from previous owner, if the tenant succeeded in his suit for specific performance, he would succeed in acquiring possession of the property

Attorney of the tenant had admitted possession of the demised premises in the capacity of tenant and depositing the rent in the court,thus, no further proof in presence of such admission was needed to show the nature of relation of the landlord and tenant

First Rent Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLD 411 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.15Eviction of tenantWillful default in payment of rentBona fide personal needRelationship of landlord and tenant, denial ofSale-agreementGoodwill/PagriScopeConcurrent findings were passed against the tenant

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that he was lawful purchaser/owner of the demised premises under sale-agreement having paid huge amount of sale-consideration to the respondent/landlord

Validity

Sale-agreement was not a title agreement but, at the most, a right to sue for such title or rights arising out of such agreement

Such rights never came to an end even if order of ejectment was recorded in Rent jurisdiction nor such order could legally cause any prejudice to legal entitlement of the purchaser if he would succeed in such lis

Attorney of the petitioner/tenant, however, had admitted that suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the respondent /landlord had been rejected by the Court of competent jurisdiction

Even contents of the sale-agreement mentioned that the payment was being made as part-payment towards "total goodwill sale amount" in respect of demised premises

Term 'goodwill' was not recognized under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (' the Ordinance 1979'), however, the superior Courts had equated the same with term "Pagri"

Plea of tenant that he had paid goodwill for premises , in no manner, could succeed as a ground of defence when eviction of tenant was being sought by the landlord

Goodwill amount, if be presumed in the present case, was paid in respect of demised premises, even then it would not debar the respondent/landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide need

Evidence of the respondent/landlord regarding his bona fide need remained unshaken

Such claim was not specifically denied by the petitioner/tenant

Mere bald denial of relationship, therefore, by the petitioner without any cogent evidence could not be given any weight

Default of even a day was sufficient to entitle the landlord for ejectment of tenant from the demised premises

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

2023 CLC 1906 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.15Eviction of tenantWillful default in payment of rentBona fide personal needRelationship of landlord and tenant, denial ofGoodwill/PagriScopeIt was second round of litigation after being remanded, when the concurrent findings were passed against the tenant

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that the demised premises (shops) were obtained on goodwill/Pagri, which was paid by him to the original owner (father of the respondents), hence a right had been created

Validity

Record revealed that in the first round of litigation no plea of goodwill/Pagri was taken by the petitioner before Rent Controller or Appellate Tribunal and such ground was taken after remand of the case

If it was presumed in the present case that the Goodwill amount was paid in respect of demised premises, even then it would not debar the respondent / landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide need

Petitioner / tenant, during the cross-examination, had admitted that he had not paid rent since July, 2013 , and that no money order was ever transmitted to any respondent (legal-heir of the original owner) which was refused

Thus, default in payment of monthly rent stood proved

Two respondents (sons of the original owner) not only filed affidavits but appeared in the witness-box stating that, being unemployed, the demised premises were required by to them for starting their business ; and their evidence remained unshaken and could not be shattered during cross-examination

No documentary proof had been brought on record by the petitioner / tenant to establish that their (respondents') demand was not in good faith

Statement of landlord on oath being consistent with pleadings and not shaken in cross-examination, was sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord was bonafide

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 YLR 2243 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Eviction petitionBona fide personal needScope

If the statement made on oath by the landlord is consistent with the averments made by him in his ejectment application and neither is his statement shaken nor is anything brought in evidence to contradict his statement, it would be sufficient for the grant of his ejectment application; all that the landlord was to show that he required the demised premises of a particular tenant for his personal use and the choice was his as to the suitability of the demised premises which he required for his personal use, and that his need is reasonable and bona fide; the landlord has the complete option to choose from any one of the several tenements occupied by the tenants in order to avail of the ground of personal need; and, the landlord himself would determine in what way, subject to law, he wants to utilize his premises after eviction of the tenant.

2022 YLR 2243 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Eviction petitionBona fide personal needScope

Tenant assailed order passed by Rent Controller whereby he was directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises

Validity

Eviction application of the landlady showed that she had specifically pleaded that the demised premises was required for her personal use as well as for the personal use of her sister who was unmarried at the relevant time

Claim of landlady could not be dislodged by the tenant

Landlady had successfully discharged her burden in proving her personal need whereafter the burden shifted upon the appellant, but he had failed to discharge the same

Impugned order did not require interference

Appeal was dismissed.

2022 CLC 1787 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.15Eviction petitionBona fide personal needScope

If the statement made on oath by the landlord is consistent with the averments made by him in his ejectment application and neither is his statement shaken nor is anything brought in evidence to contradict his statement, it will be sufficient for the grant of his ejectment application; all that the landlord has to show is that he required the demised premises of a particular tenant for his personal use and the choice is his as to the suitability of the demised premises which he required for his personal use, and that his need is reasonable and bona fide; the landlord has the complete option to choose from any one of the several tenements occupied by the tenants in order to avail of the ground of personal need; and, the landlord himself would determine in what way, subject to law, he wants to utilize his premises after eviction of the tenant.

2022 CLC 1787 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.15Eviction petitionBona fide personal needScopeTenants assailed orders passed by courts below whereby they were directed to vacate the demised premisesValidity

Landlord had claimed that the demised premises was required for establishment of his son's business, who was dependent on him

Tenants had failed to dislodge the claim of the landlord as in his cross-examination only general and vague questions were put to him that another building was owned by him and he was carrying on business therein

No specific question was put to him with regard to the business he intended to set up in the demised premises for his dependent son

Tenants had failed in discharging the burden to prove that the personal need claimed by landlord was not genuine or bona fide

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 CLC 1257 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 17Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEjectment of tenantBona fide personal needProofTenant, rights of

Ejectment application filed by landlord was allowed by Rent Controller and eviction order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

If averments in ejectment application were not shaken or disproved in rebuttal during cross-examination, the same was sufficient to prove that need was bona fide and Courts did not question such need

Landlord had prerogative to get his premises vacated for his personal need and petitioner/landlord who was doctor intended to get his premises vacated for construction of hospital for his own and his daughter's use, who was also a doctor, therefore, landlord could not be deprived of his such right

If it would appear that tenant was ejected from rented premises or building, or premises was not being used for the purpose, it was got vacated in any manner, then tenant would be re-inducted in the premises on making an application to Rent Controller under section 17(6) of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent orders passed by two courts below

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.