Personal bona fide need of landlord

Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the appellant from shop (rented premises)

Validity

Personal bona fide need is one of the recognized grounds for eviction of a tenant from the rented premises under S.17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963('the Act 1963')

Whenever a landlord pleads that the rented premises is required by him for his personal need bonafidely, assertion on oath by the landlord that he requires the property in good faith for his personal use shall be sufficient to accept his bona fide, if such assertions are consistent and in conformity with the averments of the ejectment petition

Such statement cannot be discarded in vacuum

Even otherwise, it is always the landlord, who is vested with the prerogative to exercise his choice for the rented premises and if he needs it bonafidely for his personal use, his claim cannot be rejected outrightly

No illegality or material irregularity was noticed in the impugned eviction order passed by the Rent Controller

Appeal , filed by tenant, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ejectment application filed by the respondent/landlord was allowed by the Rent Controller and the First Rent Appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed

Validity

High Court disagreed with the plea taken by the tenant

Statement of landlord had gone unrebutted, thus, his personal need stood established

Once the landlord steps into the witness box and the plea of personal need is unrebutted, the ejectment application must be allowed under S. 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Act, 1979

In presence of several properties, it is the discretion of the landlord/owner to choose the property he wishes to use and in that respect the tenant cannot dictate how and in what manner the owner utilize his property

An embargo of one year has been placed on the landlord in case the landlord wishes to rent out the property to another tenant, which protection was also available to the petitioner/tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

When the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is proved or it has been shown that they have been acting as landlord and tenant, its continuance is presumed and the burden of proving the contrary lies upon the person who denies such legal relationship

Tenant in his written statement had pleaded that he had been paying the rent to the landlady and later, landlady had sold out the subject house to him

Tenant had admitted his induction in the subject house as tenant of the landlady, thus, the burden of proof was on the tenant by establishing that he had ceased to stand in the relationship of landlord and tenant

Tenant in his written statement had not pleaded the price against which he had purchased the subject house and he could not bring on record any document in proof of the pleaded sale transaction

Tenant could not produce proof of payment of the price to the landlady or to anyone else, on her behalf

Oral assertion of the tenant was found baseless and his denial of relationship of landlord and tenant was contumacious

At the beginning of tenancy, tenant came into possession of the subject house and then he, by entering into the contract of tenancy and by payment of rent, had acknowledged the title of the landlady on the subject house

Where tenant denies the title of his landlord and it is established that the landlord has inducted him in possession of the tenement, he will forfeit his tenancy and be liable to ejectment forthwith

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Record revealed that one of the appellants / landlords, while himself deposing as witness, during his cross examination, admitted that previously the appellants filed various ejectment petitions against their tenants on (the same ground) of personal bona fide need and obtained possession in terms of the eviction order

Though it is prerogative of the landlord to choose any of his property which in his estimation would meet his requirements but at the same time, ground of personal bona fide need cannot be made basis for eviction of the tenant when it is established on the record that the landlord has already got vacated other properties from his tenant(s) on the same ground in the near past

It was also established on the record that appellants / landlords had shifted their residence just before filing of ejectment petition and they did not plead that the accommodation where they were residing was insufficient for their need

Thus, the appellants failed to prove that the rented promises (house) was required for their personal bono-fide need

Appeal, filed by the landlords, was disposed of.

Primary requirement and condition precedent for invoking provision of S. 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, claiming relief on the ground of personal bona fide need of landlord in good faith is that the landlord should be honest in his approach and sincerity of his purpose should be manifested by irreversible evidence and surrounding circumstances.

Sufficiency of accommodation either for a commercial/ industrial activity or for residential purpose is to be adjudged best by the landlord himself and it may not vary only on case to case basis but also on the basis of nature of business that one intends to establish, an honest idea about future growth of the business and its prospects

Someone may have an idea of establishing humongous business set up and he may or may not be successful in achieving his object and plan but what is important, as a test, is the honesty of intention.

Contention of tenants was that neither the names of family members nor the requirement of spouse or children was mentioned either in the eviction application or in affidavit-in-evidence

Validity

Names of the family members were immaterial for the purpose of seeking eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need as it was only the honest intention of the landlord which was material

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Appellant/tenant contended that Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction in the present matter as he was tenant of previous landlord of suit-house and was in its occupancy since long

Held, that though alleged previous landlord appeared as a witness for appellant but failed to establish his claim through any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Alleged previous landlord, had filed an independent suit for declaration to establish his claim which was dismissed and had attained finality for not being assailed before the appellate court

Landlord-respondent had produced mutation entries of demised property in his favour whereas the appellant failed to produce any sufficient evidence to justify his possession in any lawful capacity

As the appellant failed to produce any title document to support his possession over the demised property, Rent Controller or the Appellate Court were competent to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Existence of relationship between the parties would imply acceptance of title of landlord; as such whenever tenant denied that title and it was established that he was a tenant, he would forfeit his tenancy having become a trespasser and would be liable to be ejected forthwith

No illegality or infirmity was found in impugned judgment/order of eviction of appellant passed by the Rent Controller

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Eviction application filed by appellant with averments that he was a lawful owner of commercial property (two shops with front-seat/platform); that respondents were tenants of previous owners; that one respondent sublet the platform of said shops without owner's permission/consent; that sub-tenants also failed to tender rent to the appellant; that appellant was unemployed and wanted to start his business in said shops; that he approached/appraised the respondents to vacate possession of said shops, followed by legal notice but with no response

Eviction Application was dismissed by Rent Controller

Validity

In previous round of litigation, first eviction application was disposed of on compromise; and second application was dismissed by Rent Controller mainly on ground that shops were required for personal/bona fide use of appellant (previous owner's brother)

Appellant through oral/documentary evidence proved that he was the legal/lawful owner of shops in dispute, required for his personal/bona fide use/occupation, moreover he had no other shop in same vicinity

Rent Controller failed to appreciate the oral and unrebutted documentary evidence and reached wrong conclusion which caused miscarriage of justice

Appellant himself appeared before Rent Controller and was subjected to cross-examination

Person who was the most relevant to prove personal requirement was the landlord himself, and none else could effectively testify to that fact except himself; hence, his statement was of immense importance/significance which had gone unchallenged in cross-examination

Principle of res-judicata did not bar the subsequent application; because the first application was disposed of on compromise while the second application was withdrawn on technical grounds

Private settlement made earlier could not constitute an eternal defect in landlord or debar him forever to get the shop for his personal use

After purchasing shops, appellant served notice under S.13A of the Ordinance, 1959, but rent was not remitted to the appellant, thus respondents committed wilful default

Issue of wilful default by respondents was established

Appeal was allowed and respondents were directed to handover the vacant possession of shops in dispute along with front-seat to appellant.

Earlier proceedings, regarding demised shop, were initiated by the respondent's father who was dead, thereby making his legal heirs, including the respondent, as one of the co-owners/co-sharers

All said legal heirs had given no objection to the respondent

Legally every co-owner had a right, in the rent jurisdiction, to agitate the plea of personal bona fide need irrespective of fact that tenancy was created by other co-sharer

Every co-sharer had his/her own circumstances and would have a right to establish the plea of personal bona fide need in respect of such premises

High Court directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate the demised shop within six months, however, in case respondent would fail to establish his business within four months, rented shop would be returned to the petitioner

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Tenant moved application before the Rent Controller seeking grant of stay of eviction proceedings which application was dismissed

Petitioner/tenant assailed order of refusal of stay of eviction proceedings contending that the respondent (eviction petitioner/ subsequent landlord of the demised property) could not terminate tenancy agreement as the tenant had deposited considerable amount regarding Premium/ "Pagri" and he wanted to purchase demised property

Held, that payment of premium/"Pagri" could not operate as obstacle against the right of landlord/ respondent to use his own property when genuinely required

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order of rejecting the application for stay of eviction proceedings passed by the Rent Controller

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Case of landlord was that he wanted the possession of rented premises for extention in his business and alternation in its structure

Validity

Attorney of landlord had recorded his statement that the rented premises was required for enhancement of business

Landlord was entitled to choose or pick any one of his properties for his personal use and suitability of the property could not be determined by the tenant

Contention of tenant that landlord himself had not appeared before the Rent Controller for recording of his statement had no force because the law did not prohibit for appointing any attorney for recording the statement on oath before the court

Mere non-appearance of the landlord had not effected his bona fide claim

Attorney was the son of landlord and his statement was straightforward confidence inspiring and was not shaken during cross-examination

Sole testimony of the landlord was sufficient to prove personal bona fide need

Rent Controller, after proper appraisal of material available on record had came to the right conclusion

Appeal, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

If landlord filed eviction application in such tenancies that application, meant that tenancy stood expired as landlord did not wish to continue with same

Expiry of lease was a valid ground for eviction of tenant under Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001

Personal bona fide need was a valid ground and also petitioners were well within their rights as co-owners in property to file an eviction application and same did not have to be filed by owners of property

High Court allowed eviction application filed by petitioners on grounds of personal bona fide need and expiry of lease agreement

High Court directed respon-dents to vacate premises

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner/lady tenant contended that respondent was not co-owner of the property where the rented premises (flat ) was situated which fact was upheld by the Supreme Court in an earlier dispute between the parties

Validity

Petitioner although had relied upon the order passed by the Supreme Court which was passed leave to appeal, however, she did not make pointation to the subsequent order passed while hearing civil appeal wherein Supreme Court had observed in clear terms that respondent was also a co-owner of the rented premises

After nine months of passing of said order of the Supreme Court, respondent moved ejectment application so the plea taken by the tenant had no force that at the time of filing of the ejectment application the respondent was not holding status and legal character of co-owner

Petitioner in her written statement had herself admitted that she had been depositing monthly rent in the name of previous (deceased) owner and all the heirs including respondent

Petitioner, thus, by her own conduct had clearly admitted the respondent to be one of the co-owners/landlords of the property wherein the flat (rented premises) was situated

Sole testimony of the landlord was sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need

Statement of the landlord on oath, in the present case, was consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application

Landlord had the prerogative to select any of his properties for his need and the tenant had no right to raise any such objection and even the Rent Controller could not make any suggestion in that regard

If any premises was specifically meant for residential purpose, but the tenant had used such residential premises for commercial use, it would not change the status and character of the said premises from residential to commercial one

Petitioner had not produced any tangible material in order to prove the factum of payment of pagri amount and secondly, if it was presumed that pagri amount was paid by the petitioner in respect of the rented premises, even then it would not debar the respondent to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of his personal bona fide need

No jurisdictional error or any perversity was found in the impugned orders

Constitutional jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction was meant to foster justice and to remedy the wrong but could not be invoked in routine course as an additional remedy to hamper the findings of fact correctly recorded by the two forums below

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Appellant/landlord contended that Additional Rent Controller had wrongly dismissed his eviction application by holding that he (landlord) was very much confused to specify particular ground on which he wanted to evict the tenant/respondent from the demised premises

Respondent/tenant contended that the plea of the appellant for personal need of demised premises was inconsistent and self-contradictory

Validity

Record revealed that appellant/landlord extended different reasons at various stages of the case, however, all such reasons were directed to personal bona fide use

Mere technicalities could not infringe his right of personal use as all varied reasons given by the appellant were based on personal need

If the appellant would use the premises for personal need in one month time period, as provided in S. 17(6) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 possession could be reverted to the tenant

Landlord was the sole arbiter in the matter of personal need of his own premises

Appellant/landlord had made out a good case for eviction of the tenant

High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within three months

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Landlord filed ejectment petition claiming that rented premises was required for use and occupation of his son as he was jobless

Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition

Appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the rented premises

Validity

Landlord was required to produce either oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim

Landlord failed to prove his claim/plea taken in the ejectment petition and had simply recorded his own statement before Rent Controller, hence his case was without evidence

Onus to prove his personal bona fide need was on the landlord

Landlord had to prove his case on its own strength by producing cogent evidence and had no right to claim that his suit might be decreed on the weakness of opposite party in the suit

Landlord had, in addition to the disputed shop, two other shops adjacent to it and another shop had already been vacated by the tenant during pendency of litigation

Landlord could establish business of his son in the aforesaid vacated shop

Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/tenant contended that son of landlord, for whom personal need was claimed, was not produced in evidence before Rent Tribunal and that other shops of landlord were also lying vacant in the subject premises

Respondent/landlord contended that appearance of his son was not essential and it was his prerogative to select any of his shop for personal occupation

Validity

Landlord had stated that his son was jobless and he intended to establish business for his son in suit shop and witnesses of landlord were also consistent on said point

Petitioner himself admitted in the cross-examination that all the shops of landlord were in occupation of some other tenants, meaning thereby that there was no shop vacant for occupation, use and business of the son of landlord

If after order of eviction, son would not occupy the suit shop within one month or would re-let within two months then in terms of S. 13(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, petitioner could apply to Rent Controller for restoration of possession of the shop

Non-appearance of son of landlord in witness box was neither essential nor fatal to the petition for eviction

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Tenant to counter the application for ejectment had emphasized that since in the rent agreement, it was provided that the landlord would not file any ejectment proceedings against the tenant on the ground of personal use; landlord was precluded from filing ejectment application being bound by the terms of the said agreement

Validity

Landlord, no doubt was bound by the terms and conditions of the rent agreement entered by him with the tenant, but such construction of the deed would be presumed when the terms and conditions of the rent agreement, were not in conflict with the provisions of the law governing relations between the parties

Law recognized the right of the landlord to file ejectment application on personal bona fide use, which would not stand abridged just because a condition holding such right had been stipulated in the rent agreement signed by him

Such a condition in the rent agreement would not be considered having overriding effect over the very provisions of law regulating such agreements and the consequential relations between the parties

Contention of the tenant that the landlord was not competent to resort to ejectment proceedings against the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide use, was not sustainable

Evidence of the landlord that he was jobless and required the shop in question for his personal bona fide need, had not been rebutted

Said findings being based on proper appreciation of evidence, need not be interfered with

Order accordingly.

Landlady contended that she needed demised property for personal bona fide need in the wake of forthcoming marriage of his son

Tenant contended that landlady had falsely changed the ground of default of payment to personal bona fide need as current accommodation with her was sufficient

Validity

Record revealed that in the ejectment application, the landlady had asserted that marriage of her son (who was also a witness in the case) had been fixed as such she needed the demised premises for use of her son and she affirmed that she had purchased the premises in question as her son's marital house and this fact was conveyed to the tenant at the time of rent agreement

Evidence of attorney of the landlady and her other witnesses including her son had reiterated the same and also that the marriage had been put on hold for vacation of the demised premises as the girl's family had demanded a separate house for their daughter as a precondition for the marriage

All the witnesses of the appellant had unequivocally supported personal need of landlady for her son whom she intended to settle there after the marriage and which was also the demand of her would-be daughter-in-law's family

Such assertions of the witnesses had neither been shattered materially in their cross-examination nor rebutted adequately by the tenant in his reply to the ejectment application

High Court observed that it was not essentially the case of the landlady that her current accommodation was insufficient for her family's residence as her entire case was articulated of her ejectment application where she had asserted that her son's marriage had been fixed, therefore, she needed the demised premises for his use; and that she had purchased the suit property as her son's marital house, where he was to settle after the marriage and such fact was conveyed to the tenant at the time of rent agreement

Landlady, in circumstances, had been able to establish that she required the demised premises for his son

Impugned order was set aside and appeal was allowed

Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over its possession to the landlady within 60 days from the date of present judgment for which period he however, shall pay the agreed rent to the landlady

Order accordingly.

Contention of tenant was that landlord had died and right to sue did not survive to the legal heirs of the landlord who were females only

Eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but same was allowed by the Appellant Court

Validly

Sections 2(g) & 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 had treated the landlord and his spouse or his son or daughter as 'one unit'

No requirement existed to breakdown the solidarity and integrity of the family unit and to consider the individual needs of the landlord's wife, sons or daughters

Tenant could be evicted for the requirement of landlord for bona fide use of himself and other members of his family

Right to sue did survive to the member of the family of deceased landlord

Members of landlord's family would take his/her place and they would be competent to continue the suit for eviction initiated by the landlord for his occupation and for occupation of surviving members of his family

Law did not discriminate a female family members from the male family members and vice versa

Right of enjoyment of tenanted property on the ground of bona fide use did not die with the death of landlord

Legal heirs could urge all the contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which were personal to the deceased

Relief under Art. 199 of the Constitution was discretionary and unless impugned judgment had resulted in injustice or irreparable loss or injury there was no justification for interference

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Tenant did not comply with the order of Rent Controller with regard to payment of arrears of rent and his defence was struck off and eviction petition was accepted

Validity

Summary inquiry was conducted by the Rent Controller whereby tenant was called upon to explain as to the alleged default in payment of rent

No foundation had been laid for requiring the Rent Controller to record any evidence before passing of tentative rent order

Rent Controller had placed a condition that disputed portion of rent would not be withdrawn by the landlord

Tenant deposited the rent for the month of August 2013 after delay of three days for which no proper and cogent reason was offered

Tenant had been depositing the rent before the Rent Controller which was nothing but mala fide act just to put the landlord under pressure

No illegality or arbitrariness was found in the impugned order/ judgment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Once Court was satisfied of the bona fides of need of landlord for the premises or additional premises by applying objective standards, the matter of choosing out of more than one premises available to the landlord was subjective choice

Tenant could not seek details of the business which the landlord wished to commence in the premises

Landlord was not bound to disclose the nature of business to be started in the demised premises to seek ejectment of tenant on the ground of personal bonafide need

Proof of having experience in the trade or business by the landlord was not necessary to prove bona fides of personal need of the premises

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was based on incorrect reading of facts which was set aside

Findings recorded by the Rent Controller were maintained

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Contention of tenant was that landlord had not examined his son on whose behalf personal bona fide need had been claimed

Eviction petition was allowed concurrently

Validity

Sections 2(g) and 15(2) (vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 had treated the landlord and his spouse or his son or daughter as 'one unit'

Landlord was not bound to put his wife or children in the witness box for whom he needed the demised premises

Landlord for proving bona fide use of demised premises had to bring evidence on his necessity and desire

Landlord would be the best judge of his requirement and tenant could not dictate the terms to the landlord

Bona fide was a state of mind which could only be determined by examining the person who requested for such a use

Testimony of landlord could be assessed by the Court to determine bona fide and evidence of forthcoming occupier was not necessary

Non-examination of son by the landlord was neither necessary nor fatal to the eviction petition filed by the landlord on personal bona fide use in respect of his son

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

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

Landlord had succeeded to prove his bona fide requirement for personal use in good faith

No illegality or infirmity or non-appreciation of evidence had been pointed out in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below

Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within 60 days and handover the peaceful possession to the landlord failing which Rent Controller should issue writ of possession with police aid without any notice to the tenant

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Tenants contended that in a previous case by previous owner, father of tenants was directed by the court to deposit rent in the court, which tenants had been continuously depositing, therefore, alleged default was "technical"

Tenants denied personal need of landlords as they had obtained other shops in the same building

After death of tenants' father, tenants were depositing rent in a disposed of matter, without becoming a party in the proceedings

Tenants had not stated in clear terms that landlords had refused to accept rent or were avoiding to accept rent directly and had not produced any proof regarding sending rent through money order or refusal of rent by landlords

Tenants could not be allowed to take benefit by arguing that it was a "technical default"

Version of landlord was supported by his wife who clearly stated in her affidavit-in-evidence that she was enrolled advocate and had brought on record copy of her enrolment certificate and that shops in question were required by them in good faith for their personal use as they intended to start independent practice

Choice of building was prerogative of landlord and tenant or Rent Controller were not allowed to decide its suitability, therefore, version of landlords set up in eviction application was fully corroborated in evidence produced by them, and no restriction could be enforced upon landlords

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Burden to prove personal bona fide need of demised premises would stand discharged when landlord appeared in the court and had given evidence on oath which remained un-shattered in the cross-examination

Landlord had prerogative to choose any of the premises which was suitable for his personal use and tenant had no right to raise any objection

When a party had taken a specific stance in his defence then burden would lie on him to prove it

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Burden of landlord seeking eviction of tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need would stand discharged the moment he appeared in the witness box and made such statement on oath or in the form of an affidavit-in-evidence and remained un-shattered in cross-examination and un-rebutted in the evidence of opposite party

No one would be bound to depose the facts not pleaded by him in his pleadings

Landlord had prerogative to choose any of the premises for his personal use

Tenant could not dictate to the landlord in this regard

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but Appellate Court accepted the same on the ground that tenant had violated the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller

Validity

Term 'monthly rent which subsequently becomes due' referred to the monthly rent which became due in the period after passing of tentative rent order until eviction petition was decided

Section 17(8) of Islamabad Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 2001 referred to a 'specified date' by which Rent Controller could require the tenant to deposit the unpaid rent accumulated upto the date of passing the tentative rent order

Rent agreement had role in not just determining the quantum of tentative rent but also the manner and time when same was to be paid

If rent agreement had provided for payment in advance then Rent Controller in tentative rent order could require the tenant to pay the tentative rent in advance

Section 17(8) of Islamabad Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 2001 did not prohibit the Rent Controller from requiring the tenant to pay the tentative rent in advance

If Rent Controller had ordered to pay tentative rent in the succeeding month despite the fact that rent agreement required the tenant to pay rent in advance or vice versa then unless such order was modified the tenant would be bound to comply with the said order

Tentative rent order had obligated the tenant to deposit tentative rent on or before fifteenth day of each succeeding month in future

Rent Controller did not strike off the tenant's defence for depositing tentative rent with delay

Rent Controller was cognizant of the obligation placed on the tenant to deposit tentative rent for each month by the fifteenth day of every succeeding month and not the current month

Appellate Court had interpreted the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller and penalized the tenant by holding that he had defaulted in showing compliance with the said order

Tenant deposited the tentative rent for each month before the fifteenth day of each succeeding month

Such a deposit was in consonance with the direction contained in the tentative rent order

Appellate Court was not correct in holding that tenant had defaulted in showing compliance with the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller

Defence of tenant was liable to be struck off unless compliance was shown by the tenant with the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller

Even a single day's default in showing compliance with a tentative rent order would entail penal consequences

Where rent agreement did not require the tenant to pay rent in advance then Rent Controller ought to specify in the tentative rent order that future rent was to be deposited by the tenant by the fifteenth day of succeeding month and not the current month

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh

Appellate Court might consider landlord's plea with regard to the bonafide need for the rented premises

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

No hard and fast rule could be laid down for quantum and quality of evidence to prove bona fide need of landlord for seeking eviction of tenant

Statement of landlord on oath was sufficient to prove his personal requirement if it could satisfy a prudent mind that such requirement did exist

Demised premises was required by the landlord for bona fide need of his son

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

Tenant had no right to disentitle the landlord of his valuable right to acquire, deal and possess his property

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.