2017 C L C 1624
[Balochistan]
Before Abdullah Baloch, J
HABIB BANK LIMITED through Manager ----Appellant
Versus
Haji KARIM DAD and another ----Respondents
F.A.O. No.42 of 2013, decided on 19th May, 2017. Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) ---
----S. 17---Eviction of tenant ---Bona fide personal need of landlord--- Objection by the tenant
was that previous eviction petition was dismissed for non -prosecution--- Fresh eviction
petition ---Maintainability ---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 th e 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 n ext 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, sinc e
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 fil e 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 ques tion 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 t he 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 lifelo ng 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 fid e 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.
Iqbal Book Depot and others v. Khatib Ahmed and others 2001 SCMR 1197 and
Muhammad Naseem Khan v. United Bank Limited PLD 2002 SC 753 ref.
Adnan Ejaz for Appellant.
Zakriya Khan Nasar for Respondent No.1.
Amir Rana for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 24th April, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH , J.--- This appeal under Section 24 of Cantonments Rent
Restriction Act, 1963 is directed against the order and decree dated 28th February 2013
(hereinafter referred as "the impugned Order and Decree") passed by learned Rent Controller
Quetta Cant., (hereinafter referred, as "the Rent Controller), whereby the eviction application
under Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 filed by the respondents was decreed and the appellant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents within three months.
2. Facts of the case are that initially on 30th April 2009 the respondents filed an eviction
application against the appellants before the learned Rent Controller with the averments that
the applicants are the owners/landlords of pr emises bearing Survey No. 540- A, measuring
2500.96 Sq. Meters situated at Quetta Cantt, over which a building is in existence (hereinafter referred as, "the premises in question"; that the said piece of land was previously owned by one R.U. Chong (Christia n), who on 1st March, 1987 rented out the premises in question to
respondent at monthly rent of Rs.4,500/ -, but subsequently the premises in question was
leased out to the respondents and the appellant being tenant has paid the rent till 2nd June, 2008 but thereafter the appellant has failed to pay the rent within time; that the premises in
question is required to the respondents for their personal bona fide use and occupation for business purposes; that the appellant was approached to vacate the premises i n question and
to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the respondents, but they delayed and thus are not inclined to vacate the same.
3. The appellant contested the eviction application by filing its rejoinder, whereby he has
admitted the owners hip of the respondents. Out of the pleadings of the parties, Rent
Controller has framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the application is maintainable in view of legal objection E of the
rejoinder?
(ii) Whether the premises in question is required for p ersonal bona fide use of the
applicant?
(iii) Whether the respondent is a bad paymaster?
(iv) Relief?
4. The respondents produced three AWs and also recorded the statement of respondent
No.1, whereas in rebuttal, the appellant produced two witnesses and al so recorded statement
of his attorney. On conclusion of trial and hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court decreed the eviction application, vide order and decree referred above. Whereafter, instant
appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed by
learned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt. is suffering from misreading and non- reading of
evidence; that the learned trial Court without appraising the evidence passed a none speaking
order, which is hig hly uncalled for; that the learned trial Court ignored the version of
appellant, which is not permissible under the law; that it was not proved through evidence that the appellant is bad pay master; that the inspection record submitted by the Commission was not discussed and taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller; that the
respondents have been failed to prove their case of personal requirement; that the impugned order was passed in an arbitrary manner, which resulted miscarriage of justice.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2
vehemently opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and
contended that the property in question is required for personal bona fide use of the
respondents; that the respondents have proved their case through confidence inspiring
evidence; that the appellants despite providing several opportunities in a long period have failed to vacate the possession; that the respondents are intended to esta blish their business in
the property in question; that the learned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt. had passed the impugned order in favour of the respondents after proper appreciation of evidence, which is uncalled for interference by this Court.
7. Heard t he learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that
initially the property in question was leased out by the Cantonment Board to one R.U Chong
(Christain) and thereafter the same was rented out to the appellants (Habib Bank Limite d) on
1st March, 1987 on monthly rent of Rs.4500/ - (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred),
however, thereafter the said property bearing survey 540 -A 2500.96 square meters was
devolved to the respondents, whereafter with mutual consent, the appellant continue d to
remain tenant of the respondents. It is further alleged by the respondents; that the appellants were failed to pay the rent after 2nd June, 2008 while on the other hand, the appellants in their rejoinder raised objections on maintainability of the application of the respondents in their preliminary legal objection (e). Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues as stated above and the main issues i.e. issue No.1, whether the application is maintainable in view of th e legal objection (e) of the rejoinder?; the issue No.1
was regarding maintainability of the suit, as the objection raised by the appellants that prior to the instant application, the respondents have already filed an application against the appellants, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt. on 1st December, 2010 on non- prosecution and the same was not challenged before the next higher
forum as such the application of the respondent is hit by the principle of res judicata after hearing the parties, the learned Rent Controller has rightly decided the issue No.1 that the
earlier application was not dismissed on merits, rather it was dismissed on non -prosecution,
since the earlier application was with regard to the none payment of monthly rent as such, the instant application is for personal bona fide requirements of respondents, and a fresh cause of action has accrued to the respondents and the respondents are at liberty to file application for ejectment at any stage for their personal bona fide requirement.
8. The next important issue was issue No.2 "whether the premises in question are
required for personal bona fide use of applicants"? In this regard, the respondents/applicants produced three AWS and also recorded the statements of attorney Haji Karim Dad the
respondent No.1. Statements of all AWS supported the contention of respondents/ applicants
that the property in question is required for personal bona fide use of respondents/applicants
as well as the averments of eviction appli cation were supported by the statement on oath of
the respondent/applicants, in this regard, reliance is placed on Iqbal Book Depot and others v. Khatib Ahmed and others, 2001 SCMR 1197 wherein it was held that: -
It is well- settled by now that where the statement of landlord on oath was quite
consistent with his averment made in the ejectment applications, neither his statement was shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict the statement that would be considered sufficient for acceptance of t he ejectment application. In this
regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in case titled Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062 wherein it was held as follows: -
"Sole testimony of the landlord is sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need of
premises. Where the statement of landlord on oath was quite consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application and neither his statement was shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict his statement and tenant had not even stepp ed in the witness -box to controvert the testimony of the landlord, Rent Controller
was fully justified in accepting the evidence of the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant."
A similar proposition was discussed in case titled Akhtar Qureshi v. Nisa r Ahmad
2000 SCMR 1292 wherein it was held that "statement of landlady on oath was quite consistent with her averments made in the ejectment application, neither her statement was shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict the said statement ---
Rent Controller, in circumstances, was fully justified in accepting the evidence of the
landlady and ordering the eviction of the tenant"
9. In view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the issue No.2
was rightly resolved by the l earned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt. in favour of the
respondents/applicants.
10. As far as the issue No.3 "whether respondent is bad pay master?" is concerned, it is
pertinent to mention here that during the course of pendency, this issue was rescinded b y the
trial Court as such, need no discussion.
11. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to their long
standing established business is concerned, the tenants cannot be permitted to say that their
long standing establish ed business would be uprooted on account of their ejectment, but the
fact remains that rehabilitating a landlord, the tenant must make premises for the owner and find out an alternate accommodation. In the present case, the appellant has enjoyed tenancy rights for almost thirty years, they cannot claim a lifelong tenancy rights in the said property.
Refer Muhammad Naseem Khan v. United Bank Limited PLD 2002 SC 753.
12. The view formed by the Rent Controller in the present case, on the face of record
appears to be well -reasoned and in consonance with the spirit and object of law, even
otherwise, this is also the right of the landlord to pick and choose the property for his
personal bona fide need.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to
point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, which is not open for
interference by this Court and appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to
cost. However, the appellant is directed to vacate the possession of said premises to the respondent/applicants within six 6 months from this judgment.
MQ/85/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.