Ejectment of Tenant

Ejectment order could not be interfered with by any civil court in collateral proceedings.

When order of ejectment was passed by Rent Controller, the Executing Court was bound to give effect to it and could not entertain objection petitions subsequently on the issues already decided by the Rent Controller nor could it entertain any claim of defendants to enlarge the scope of rent proceedings

Executing Court could not entertain any objection petitions on the basis of issues already decided by it nor could it consider objection petitions on the basis of issues pending in collateral proceedings before any other forum.

Through objection petitions Executing Court could not allow introduction of issues which changed the complexion of execution proceedings to that of original rent proceedings

Illustration.

Rent Controller allowed ejectment application and passed eviction order against tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of monthly rent

Validity

Tenant through verbal evidence asserted that rent from March, 2011 to February, 2012 was paid through valid receipt issued by landlady but no such receipt was produced during evidence or recording statement of tenant nor put the same to landlady during her statement or cross-examination

Mere appending a purported receipt along with memo of appeal could not be termed as evidence unless proved in accordance with law

Accepting of rent by landlady after 3 to 6 months/periodically from tenant and receipts annexed with appeal showing lump sum payment would lead to presumption that practice of receiving periodic rent was adopted by landlord was not tenable

Tenant was under legal obligation to pay monthly rent to landlady and if tenant had adopted practice to pay rent at irregular intervals, he made himself liable to eviction

Tenants were under legal obligation to deposit rent within 60 days after it had become due but he failed to do so and committed wilful default

High Court declined to interfere in eviction order passed by Rene Controller

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Benefit of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be extended as said provision of law was not applicable under S. 15(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and period of limitation i.e. 30 days from the date of order appealed against had been provided under said section, delay could not be condoned in such appeals which were liable to be dismissed on such score alone

Disputed shops were constructed by the tenants from their own pockets

New tenancy was created rendering ejectment petition as infructuous due to fixation of fair rent with the concurrence of both the parties and no ejectment order could be passed

Both the courts below had correctly evaluated and appreciated evidence produced by the parties and correctly applied the law applicable thereto

Appeals were dismissed in circumstances.

Ejectment petition was accepted on account of non-compliance of the order of deposit of tentative rent passed by Rent Tribunal

Default in payment of rent as had been alleged in ejectment petition was not established

Tenant deposited rent of current month in compliance of order of Rent Tribunal

Order of Rent Tribunal was not specific in respect of current or succeeding, the future rent

Appeal filed by tenant was accepted as no default on the part of tenant had been proved

Validity

In absence of any tenancy agreement in-between the parties to the litigation, the rent due was always to be considered a rent to be paid after expiry of one month

Term 'rent due' in no way could be denoted to either an advance rent or deposit of the rent of current month in the same month

Rent Tribunal had passed a vague direction as to by which date of which month, future rent was to be paid by the tenant

Order of Rent Tribunal was in derogation of law on the subject of deposit of 'rent due' and the same was rightly reversed by appellate court

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Ordinarily tentative/ approximate rent had to be fixed on the basis of pleadings of the parties where default was alleged in payment of the same

Rent Controller was bound to pass order under S. 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 before framing of issues and was not bound to hold detailed inquiry while passing order of tentative rent which was to be fixed on the basis of material placed before him

Tenancy was oral, in the present case, and no receipts with regard to payment of rent had been placed on record

Tenant had failed to point out that rate of tentative rent was not according to the pleadings of the parties

Impugned order for fixation of tentative rent was not arbitrary or perverse

Actual rate of rent was yet to be determined during course of recording evidence in the ejectment proceedings

Deposit made with regard to arrear or future rent under the impugned order would be adjustable towards the final liability of tenant if any

Tenant had failed to deposit future rent as directed by the Rent Controller and committed default in payment of rent

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

No necessity was shown by the landlord to require the premises for personal bona fide need, nor any notice was stated to have been issued to establish personal requirement

Landlord suddenly planned to reside at the subject premises

Effect

No doubt it was the prerogative of the landlord to decide the suitability and choice but such prerogative could not be based on apparent mala fide.

Landlords filed an ejectment petition wherein they moved an application under S. 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Application for payment of arrears of rent was accepted and tenant was directed to deposit the same who failed and her defence was struck off

Eviction petition was accepted concurrently

Validity

Tenant had failed to comply with the tentative rent order and she was guilty of non-compliance of the direction to deposit monthly rent

Said findings were findings of facts and no evidence was required to come to such conclusion

Order passed by the Appellate Authority was final and same could not be challenged through constitutional petition on the ground that "no other adequate remedy" had been provided by law or said finality attached to the order had violated the constitutional guarantees provided under Art. 4 of the Constitution to the tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed and tenant was directed to vacate the premises within specified period.

Rent Controller dismissed the rent application of the landlord holding that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the landlord and set aside the order of the Rent Controller

Tenant took a plea that filing of the rent application was without any cause of action and the same was not maintainable, as 10/11 years before the tenant had purchased the said tenement for the sum of Rs.50,000 as agreed on the strength of sale agreement and the tenant initially made advance payment of an amount of Rs.5000 while remaining amount was agreed to pay at the rate of Rs.1000 till such time the sale consideration of Rs.50,000 was completed

Landlord proved relationship with the tenant as landlord and tenant and the tenant had failed to make out any ground for interference in the judgment of the Appellate Court, which was based on sound reasons

Tenant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the Appellate Court in its judgments and decree, which had been passed while appreciating the evidence available on record

Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court was maintained with modification that the tenant was allowed six months time to vacate the premises

Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed.

Mere taking plea of denial of tenancy was not enough to take away the jurisdiction of Rent Controller to pass tentative rent order

Tenant would continue to be tenant unless he established his ownership rights conferring title on him

Rent Controller had passed order for payment of arrears of rent and future rent that same would be subject to withdrawal after final judgment/order and interest of tenant had been secured

Tenant had willfully disobeyed the tentative rent order

Tenant knowing the penal consequences of non-compliance of tentative rent order should have deposited the rent in the court instead of putting his claim of ownership at risk and physical possession from the tenement

Compromise before Rent Controller could not be termed as absolute transfer of ownership right in favour of tenant nor terms of compromise could be enforced against landlord in a fresh round of litigation before Rent Controller

Compromise was not enforceable through Rent Controller and same could not be defence to deny payment of rent to the owner

Tenant should have file a suit for specific performance of contract/ compromise to enforce terms of the same

Compromise between the parties before the court was not more than a mere contract and a breach of the same would give rise to fresh cause of action and fresh suit could be filed by an aggrieved person for redressal of his grievance

Tenant could not be allowed to enjoy the tenement as an absolute owner pending the case on the grounds that landlord had promised to transfer the title in his favour

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Merely by entering into agreement of sale, petitioner did not acquire any title to demised premises nor doctrine of part performance in terms of section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applied

Petitioner only could get a right to compel the other party to execute a "sale deed" in respect of property

Unless and until such "sale deed" was actually executed by owner, who had entered into such contract, petitioner could not be said to have acquired any ownership over the property

Petitioner failed and or avoided to produce alleged agreements of sale in evidence

Petitioner failed to point out any significant portion of evidence which was not considered by two Courts below

Question of non-reading and or mis-reading of evidence did not arise

Petitioner failed to prove his ownership or entitlement for receiving of rent

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two Courts below

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Dismissal of ejectment petition by courts below on ground that landlord in his letter sent to widow after death of original tenant had not disclosed factum of commission of default for disputed period

Validity

Tendering rent in time to landlord was legal obligation of widow, who even if be a pardanashin lady could tender rent through her son doing business in demised shop

Neither widow herself nor her son had taken any step to tender monthly rent to landlord in time

Widow/tenant could not absolve herself from such obligation merely on such ground that landlord had not disclosed factum of default for disputed period in such letter or he had knowledge about death of original tenant

High Court set aside impugned orders and directed widow/tenant to hand over vacate possession of shop within specified time.

Impugned orders had not been filed by the petitioner with the Constitutional petition, Court without examining the same could not set aside the order nor maintainability of constitutional petition could be determined

Illegality/irregularity committed by the Trial Court would provide good grounds to the petitioner to strike the final order in appeal

Authenticity of documents could be determined in the light of evidence produced by the parties

Rent Controller was supposed to formulate "points for determinations/issues" after recording of evidence and hearing the parties in the judgment

Petitioner could capitalize irregularities committed in the proceedings in the appeal against the final order

No remedy had been provided against any interim order passed under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Petitioner had misused the authority of High Court to delay the proceedings of the case

Constitutional petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000 and Rent Controller was directed to decide the matter within a period of four months.

Ejectment application was concurrently allowed by Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court in favour of landlord on the plea of default in monthly rent and bona fide personal need of landlord for his son

Validity

No circumstance was available on record to show that desire of landlord to use his own property for his son was tainted with malice or any evil design

Statement of landlord's son on oath was not seriously challenged and same being consistent with case pleaded by landlord must have been accepted on its face value and giving due weight

Conclusion drawn by Rent Controller to the effect that landlord's need was bona fide, could not be dislodged in absence of any strong evidence to rebut presumption of truth in statement of landlord

Landlord had absolute right to acquire and deal with property in the manner best suited to him and tenant had no right to disentitle landlord of his valuable rights to acquire, deal and possess his property which right was guaranteed by Art. 23 of the Constitution

Finding of Rent Controller on the point of personal need of landlord's son was in accordance with law

Tenant failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgments/orders

High Court declined to interfere in eviction orders passed by two courts below

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that evidence produced by landlord on the point of sub-letting was very weak, therefore orders passed by both the courts below were unjustified

Validity

Landlord in his ejectment application as well as affidavit in evidence had given statement that the tenant/petitioner had sub-let the demised premises

Tenant/petitioner had neither controverted such contention during cross-examination nor he denied the contention of landlord but on the other hand he kept silent to the effect of statement made by landlord regarding sub-letting

Particular fact had been deposed on oath but the same had not been controverted/challenged/questioned in cross-examination, the presumption would be that such part of evidence was deemed to have been accepted by the party against whom that evidence was given

Landlord had successfully proved that the tenant had sub-let the premises in question

Concurrent findings of two courts below could not be disturbed in circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Ejectment application and appeal filed by landlord were dismissed by Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court respectively, on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and possession of tenant was on the basis of agreement to sell

Validity

Agreement of sale did not create any title, therefore, without determination of such title by Civil Court, findings of Rent Controller were pre-matured and resulted into miscarriage of justice

Tenant could not prove execution of sale agreement as suit for specific performance was dismissed and no appeal was preferred

Rent Controller on the basis of mere agreement of sale could not hold that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant unless a suit for specific performance was decreed by civil court

No clause of agreement could be relied upon, when the agreement itself was not proved by tenant as suit for specific performance was dismissed

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Rent of Rs.14,110 was to be paid by the education department whereas difference of rent of Rs.6,890 was required to be paid by the tenant from her own pocket

Education department should have followed their earlier correspondence with the new owner with regard to completion of lease period and payment of rent

Education department was also impleaded in the ejectment petition but non-deposit of rent was only burdened upon the tenant rather being a common liability should have been shared by the said department also

New owner after purchase of demised premises accepted the commitments and liabilities incurred over the said premises which was binding upon him including the agreement executed between the previous owner and tenant

Rent Controller directed the tenant to pay Rs.1,47,000 as total arrear of rent and that rent of Rs.21,000 per month be paid of each month

Such directions were contrary to law as same were passed ignoring the responsibility of education department to pay its part of rent

Impugned order of Rent Controller suffered from legal and factual infirmities

Education department was favouring the tenant with regard to extended lease period but later on their attitude changed

Impugned order was set aside and Rent Controller was directed to provide further opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Ejectment petition was dismissed concurrently inter alia on the ground that no notice of change of ownership was served on the tenant after the original landlord died

Validity

Perusal of evidence revealed that the tenant had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but had later on, after attestation of mutations concerning the premises, had not only denied said relationship but also set up a new story of ownership, firstly in favour of his wife and then another person

Rent Controller non-suited the landlord solely on failure of landlord to comply with S.13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 regarding notice of change of ownership

Notice under S.13-A of the Ordinance, if not served, would not amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant and institution of ejectment petition, was also to be treated as a notice of change of ownership

Person, even if he was not owner of a property could be deemed to be a landlord, and similarly he may be the owner but not a landlord

Courts ought to have looked into relationship of landlord and tenant and should not go into the disputed question of title as it was the job of the civil court and not that of the Rent Controller

High Court set aside impugned orders and directed the tenant to vacate the premises

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

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 petition was dismissed concurrently inter alia on the ground that no notice of change of ownership was served on the tenant after the original landlord died

Validity

Perusal of evidence revealed that the tenant had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but had later on, after attestation of mutations concerning the premises, had not only denied said relationship but also set up a new story of ownership, firstly in favour of his wife and then another person

Rent Controller non-suited the landlord solely on failure of landlord to comply with S.13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 regarding notice of change of ownership

Notice under S.13-A of the Ordinance, if not served, would not amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant and institution of ejectment petition, was also to be treated as a notice of change of ownership

Person, even if he was not owner of a property could be deemed to be a landlord, and similarly he may be the owner but not a landlord

Courts ought to have looked into relationship of landlord and tenant and should not go into the disputed question of title as it was the job of the civil court and not that of the Rent Controller

High Court set aside impugned orders and directed the tenant to vacate the premises

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

If a tenant denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant he should first vacate the premises in his possession and then contest his proprietary rights

Tenant remained a tenant, he could not prolong his occupation by exercising his right of being subsequent purchaser unless so held by the court of competent jurisdiction

Tenant had no status to justify his possession and if he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant he would be an illegal occupant

Ejectment proceedings were between land owner and tenant and entry or interference by the third party was to be jealously guarded

Constitutional petition was allowed

Application filed by the subsequent purchaser was dismissed.

Tenant, in circumstances, was required to vacate the rented premises, if he claimed to have purchased the demise premises, as his claim was a subject-matter of a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell.

Landlord (respondent) had shown his willingness to allow three months' time to tenant (petitioner) to vacate the rented shop provided he continued paying rent until vacation of the shop

Tenant sought one and a half years' time to vacate the shop

Landlord and tenant both consented to allow the tenant 9 months' time to vacate the shop provided monthly rent was paid before the tenth day of every month and if tenant defaulted on such payment, he would be liable to be ejected immediately

Upon completion of 9 months tenant was to surrender physical possession of the shop to the landlord and statements from both parties made during the disposal of constitutional petition would not affect their respective rights in the suit pending for ascertainment of ownership of shop

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Tenant resisted ejectment proceedings on the plea that he had filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and possession of premises was with him as part performance of the agreement

Validity

Tenant could not be protected from ejectment merely by asserting agreement to sell in his favour or by filing suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, unless sale-deed was executed in his favour and agreement to sell had been enforced

Filing of civil suit could not vitiate title of landlord unless the same was finally decided

Only those cases could be left to be decided by civil court, where intricate and complicated questions regarding title of immovable property were involved

Neither there was any dispute regarding ownership of landlord nor there was any intricate or complicated question involved about title of leased premises

Tenant had himself admitted that landlord was owner of the premises and he agreed to sell the same to him, there was no need to leave the matter to be decided by civil court

Tenant could not protect his possession over leased house by invoking provisions of S.53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Tenant failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity or legal or factual infirmity in eviction order passed by Rent Controller

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Ejectment of petitioner (tenant) was ordered by Trial Court on the ground that the period of lease under the lease agreement between the parties had expired and unilateral renewal of lease was not permissible under the said lease agreement

Petitioner (tenant) contended that under said lease agreement, the lease was renewable on the option of the petitioner (tenant) which option had been exercised by him

Contention of the respondent(landlord) was that under said lease agreement, the first renewal could be effected only with the mutual consent of the parties but the second term was renewable at the option of the petitioner(tenant)

Controversy between the parties revolved around the lease agreement which was an admitted document between the parties

Use of the word "terms" in the relevant clause of said lease agreement made it clear that both the first and second renewals were at the option of the petitioner (tenant) and it could be safely inferred from the said lease agreement that the first term was renewable for a further term of five years and after that the tenancy shall be renewed for a further term on the option of the petitioner(tenant)

Such option was given to the petitioner(tenant) for both renewals of the tenancy on the same terms and conditions, and that had been categorically clarified by the use of the word "terms" instead "term" in the relevant clause of the said lease agreement

Had the intention of the parties been that the option would confine to the second renewal only, then the word "terms" would not have been used in the relevant clause of the said lease agreement

Use of the words "at the option of the lessee" in the relevant clause, revealed that same was the qualifying clause for both renewals

Clauses of the said lease agreement read and interpreted together on the basis of texts would lead to an inference that the tenancy was renewable for two terms of five years at the option of the petitioner (tenant)

Courts below had failed to construe the terms of the said agreement in true perspective and with reference to the context

Tenancy still existed and the period for the same had not yet expired, therefore, the ejectment petition was premature

Requirement of personal need was not one of the grounds for eviction provided under S.15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Orders of courts below were not sustainable under the law and were set aside

Ejectment petition filed by the respondent (landlord) stood dismissed

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

When default is established on the part of tenant, he has no right to retain possession of rented premises.

When relationship of landlord and tenant is established, tenant cannot challenge veracity of title of landlord, rather first of all he should hand over vacant possession to landlord and then seek remedy before appropriate forum.

Despite refusal of previous owner to accept monthly rent on account of change of ownership, tenant deposited monthly rent in the name of previous owner

Deposit of rent by tenant in the name of previous owner did not absolve him from the liability to pay rent to landlord as deposit of rent in the name of previous owner could not be considered as due payment

High Court declined to differ with concurrent conclusions arrived at by two courts below and maintained eviction order

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Ejectment application filed by landlord was dismissed by Rent Controller on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved

Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of Rent Controller and passed eviction order against tenant

Plea raised by tenant was that documents of Excise and Taxation Department about payment of property tax were not sufficient to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between parties

Validity

Though documents of Excise and Taxation Department might not be conclusive evidence to establish relationship of landlord and tenant but at the same time those were not totally irrelevant as the documents indicated ownership and payment of property tax

Oral as well as documentary evidence produced by landlord in shape of sale deed, documents of Excise and Taxation Department regarding payment of property tax of house in question and utility bills of house proved that landlord had ownership in respect of the house and petitioner was tenant under him

Tenant could not take advantage of position to frustrate eviction proceedings on the pretext that property owned by landlord was not determinable, particularly when he himself could not prove his title and there was no other claimant of ownership of the property

High Court declined to interfere in eviction order passed by Lower Appellate Court against tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Rent Controller is not competent under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to determine question of title of property, which was job of Civil Court but if tenant fails to produce any title document to support his possession over premises in dispute, Rent Controller or Appellate Court can validly determine relationship of landlord and tenant between parties.

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.

Rent Controller relying on photocopies of documents, allowed ejectment applications filed by landlords on the plea of reconstruction

Validity

Rent Controller noted that since extract of revenue record and sanctioned building plan etc. where photocopies, therefore, such documents would be marked as Exhibits

Landlords having brought photocopies of sanctioning letter and sanctioned building plan on record did not prove them in accordance with law

Rent Controller on the basis of same proceeded to decide issue relating to approval of building plan and reconstruction of demised premises against tenants

Rent Controller, therefore, erroneously arrived at the decision in respect of such issue

Rent Controller had denied opportunity of fair trial and due process to tenants

Entitlement to fair trial and due process, after insertion of Art.10-A in the Constitution, was a fundamental right

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, set aside ejectment orders passed by Rent Controller and remanded the matter to him for decision afresh after affording opportunity of leading additional evidence to parties

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Ejectment petition was accepted by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent however the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court on the ground that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Validity

No rent agreement was available with the petitioner that premises was given on rent by his brother (the alleged donor) in the year 1968-1969 and rent receipt showing that the said property was let out to the respondents was found to be dubious

No receipt for payment of rent for the period between 1968-1969 to 1987-1988 i.e. 20 years was produced by the petitioner during the trial to prove his case that the respondents were his tenants

Landlord-petitioner produced certain receipts regarding payment of rent but the receipts were either not bearing proper signatures, and from the receipts it appeared that the payment had been made through cash, which payment could not be made as the government payments were usually made by way of cross cheque etc. and payment of rent by way of cash hardly carried any weight

Proceedings of ejectment had been initiated by the petitioner by stating that the property was rented out by his brother but at no stage of proceedings the brother of landlord-petitioner had claimed about either giving the property on rent or issuing any receipt

School was taken over by a valid legislation and the then school manage-ment had never challenged the same

Respondents (Government authorities) never accepted the petitioner to be the landlord or owner of the premises, hence principles of estoppel and res judicata had no bearing to the present petition

Mere entries in the Excise and Taxation Register in respect of premises would be of little value for the purpose of establishing relationship of landlord and tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Landlord by not doing the same, had not made out the case for requiring premises for personal bona fide need, in circumstances

Findings of the Appellate Court were perverse, suffering from infirmity requiring the interference of the High Court

Impugned judgment was set aside and constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters was limited and confined to ascertain as to whether the Appellate Court had not flouted the provisions of law

Constitutional juris-diction was discretionary which was meant to foster justice and to remedy the wrong.

Where the tenant took up a position that he had purchased the property even then he had to vacate the same and file a suit for specific performance whereafter he would be given access to the premises in question

Sale agreement did not create title/ownership

Tenant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and claiming to have purchased the premises much prior to the period of alleged default then he was not expected to pay the rent

Landlord having appeared in the witness box and made statement regarding his personal bona fide need, requirement of law on his part stood discharged

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

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

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.

Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, unless proved to be perverse, without jurisdiction and patently illegal, could not be disturbed while exercising constitutional jurisdiction

Disputed questions of fact could not be resolved by filing constitutional petition nor scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence, upon which concurrent findings had been recorded by the courts below, particularly in rent matters, was not permissible in constitutional jurisdiction

Impugned judgment and decree did not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error

Constitutional petition being devoid of any merit was dismissed.

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in such mattes was very much limited and confined only to ascertain whether the Appellate Court had not flouted provisions relating to the statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto.

Ejectment application filed on the ground of bona fide personal need of landlords and default in payment of monthly rent was allowed by both the courts below

Validity

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

Such being a question of fact and finding on the subject could not be taken exception to unless it was shown that it suffered from violations of some fundamental legal principle in the matter of appreciation of evidence or omission of evidence or misreading of evidence

Nothing solid or concrete evidence could be brought on record in rebuttal by tenants showing that need of landlords was imaginary or based on mala fide

Tenants failed to show any illegality, gross irregularity or infirmity in findings recorded by both the courts below

Landlords successfully established on record that concurrent findings recorded by two courts below were in accordance with law and evidence available on record which were sustainable on record and were maintained

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Non-payment of rent is a negative aspect and if landlord appears in court and states on oath that he has not received rent for certain period, it would be sufficient to discharge burden that lies under law upon him and onus then shifts to tenant to prove affirmatively that he had paid or tendered rent for period in question.

Ejectment application filed by landlord on the plea of bona fide personal need was allowed by Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court concurrently

Plea raised by tenant was that landlord demanded from him enhancement in rent

Validity

Even if any demand was made by landlord for enhancing rent, such demand would not debar them to subsequently seek eviction of tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need which they had succeeded to establish during the course of their evidence

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

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

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.

Petitioner was ex-wife of landlord and she claimed to be owner of premises and her suit for declaration against her ex-husband (landlord) was pending before civil court

Application for becoming party to ejectment proceedings was dismissed by Rent Controller and the same was maintained by Lower Appellate court

Validity

No case for interference in concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below was made out

Petitioner had no locus standi whatsoever to file appeal against ejectment order passed by Rent Controller, which order was not assailed by both the parties contesting rent proceedings

Petitioner claiming herself to be owner of premises, filed appeal before Lower Appellate Court, which had rightly been dismissed by said court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Ejectment application filed by landlord was allowed by Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent by tenant and eviction order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Non-payment of rent was a negative fact and if landlord appeared and stated on oath the he had not received rent for a certain period, it would be sufficient to discharge burden that lay upon him under law and then burden was shifted to tenant to prove affirmatively that he had paid or tendered rent

Only exception to such rule could be where landlord admitted non-issuance of rent receipts

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

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

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.