2022 C L C 173
[Balochistan]
Before Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar, J
Messrs IQRA ANWAR -UL-QURAN LIL ITEFAL through Director ----Appellants
Versus
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, HEADQUARTER ISLAMABAD
through Station Director BPS, Quetta ----Respondent
F.A.O. No.21 of 2018, decided on 26th March, 2021.
(a) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S.13 ---Ejectment of tenant ---Bona fide personal need of landlord--- Statement of landlord -
--Scope ---Landlord/Pakistan Bro adcasting Corporation (PBC) filed eviction petition on the
ground that demised property (flats) were required in good faith for accommodation of its employees ---Held, that statements adduced in the evidence by representative as well as
witnesses of respondent/landlord, regarding the bona fide requirement, were found consistent with the averments of ejectment application and could not be dislodged/disproved/rebutted in cross -examination ---Appellant/tenant had failed to shatter the veracity of statements of
landlord as well as its witnesses --- Statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with the
averment of ejectment application and not shaken in cross -examination, was sufficient to
prove that its requirement was bona fide ---Findings of the Rent Controller we re based on
elaborate and correct appraisal of evidence, allowing eviction of appellant/tenant ---Appeal of
tenant was dismissed, in circumstances.
M/s F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroz 1996 SCMR 1178 and Muhammad Shoaib
Alam and others v. Muhammad Iqbal 2 000 SCMR 903 ref.
(b) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S.13 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.23 & 24---Right of ownership ---Eviction of tenant --
-Right of property as a fundamental right was protected under Arts. 23 & 24 of t he
Constitution ---Right of ownership was a fundamental right superior than the right of tenancy -
--Appellant/tenant, being inferior in status regarding utilization of the demised property, could not determine its sufficiency or insufficiency---Rent Controll er had rightly decided the
issue regarding personal bona fide need of landlord---Appeal of tenant was dismissed, in circumstances.
Shehzad Ahmed and Yasir Adnan for Appellant.
Najam -ud-Din Mengal and Hafeezullah for Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 19th a nd 22nd March, 2021.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J .----The Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation ("PBC")
Headquarter, Islamabad through its Station Director, Quetta (respondent/applicant), filed
application under Section 13 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Res triction Ordinance -VI of
1959 ("the Ordinance") before the Court of Civil Judge -VII/Rent Controller, Quetta (the
"trial Court") for ejectment of M/s Iqra Anwar -ul-Quran Lil Itefal Trust through its Director,
Muhammad Shakil Dewar (appellant/respondent) from the subject matter i.e. 04 Flats situated in LPT Colony, Sariab Road, Quetta (the "Flats in question") on the basis of default in payment of rent as well as for accommodation of department's employees.
2. The application was contested by the appellant/respondent by way of filing
reply/rejoinder, whereby the claim of respondent/ applicant was repudiated, however, the contents mentioned in para -3 of the application regarding tenancy agreement between the
parties was admitted by the appellant/res pondent.
3. Out of the pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed following Issues on 07.06.2016:
1. Whether the property i.e. 04 Nos. of flats located at LPT Colony Sariab Road Quetta are required by the applicant for residence/bona fide use?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
3. Relief?
4. In support of its claim, the respondent/applicant produced, Akhtar Muhammad as
AW-1 and Sardar Khan as AW -2. Lastly, the representative namely Mr. Sohail Khatak,
Station Director, recorde d his statement and exhibited the Lease/rent Agreements dated
21.06.2011, 26.07.2012 as Ex- A/1 and Ex -A/2 and letter dated 04.06.2013 (Ex- A/3).
5. In rebuttal, the appellant/respondent has produced Zia -ur-Rehman and Arbab Abdul
Shakoor as RWs.
Perusal of record reveals that despite affording several opportunities, the
representative of appellant/respondent failed to appear before the trial Court for recording of his statement just to linger on the matter. Consequently, the trial Court closed the right of appellant/ respondent on 15.02.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/ respondent filed an
application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. for reviewing of order dated 15.02.2018, which too was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dat ed 17.02.2018.
Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant/respondent preferred Constitutional Petition No.128 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed of with consent of the parties on 22.03.2018 and both the orders were set aside and the appellan t/respondent was directed to
produce his witness on next date of hearing and in case, he failed to procure the attendance of witness for any reason then his right to produce the defence witness stands closed. Despite clear directions, the appellant/respond ent failed to produce his representative for recording of
statement before the trial Court. Later on, the trial Court vide order dated 28.03.2018 once
again closed the right of recording the statement of representative of the appellant/ respondent.
6. Cons equently, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court accepted
the application vide judgment and decree dated 19.04.2018 (the "impugned judgment") in the following manner:
"Since the issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the applican t, therefore, the
applicant is entitled for the relief claimed for and, the respondent is directed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.240,000/ - of monthly rent of the flats w.e.f. December,
2014 to February, 2016 to the applicant and also handover the vac ant possession of
the flats in question i.e. 04 Nos to the applicant within (15) days."
Subsequently, the appellant preferred FAO No.21 of 2018 before this Court which
was also dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2019. Thereafter, Civil Petition No.49 of 2020
was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was accepted vide order dated 26.02.2021 and the matter was remanded to this Court with direction to decide the appeal afresh after examining and analyzing the evidence on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed by
the trial Court suffers from mis -reading, non -reading and mis -appreciation of evidence; that
the trial Court has failed to take into consideration this important aspect of the case that the personal bona fide need of the Flats in question for its employees was not proved; that the
respondent/applicant has failed to prove that the appellant made default in payment of rent. Learned counsel placed on record receipts of monthly rent of the Flats in q uestion deposited
through CCD account. Lastly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the arguments so
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the appellant has failed to pay the monthly rent from December, 2014 to February, 2016; that the respondent/ applicant proved its case against the appellant through oral as well as documentary evidence; that the Flats in question are require d to the respondent / applicant for accommodation of
department's, employees; that the trial Court had rightly accepted the claim of respondent/applicant. Finally, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and g one through the available record.
Admittedly, the respondent/applicant is owner of the Flats in question, which were
rented out to the appellant/respondent on monthly rent of Rs.16,000/ - payable on 5th of every
succeeding month and in this regard initial rent agreement dated 21.6.2011 (Ex- A/1) was
executed in between the parties which was solely for a period of 11 months and after expiry of first agreement; the same was extended through another agreement dated 26.07.2012 which was expired on 31.05.2013. In the meantime, the appellant/respondent through letter
dated 04.06.2013 (Ex- A/3) requested for extension of lease agreement, but the same was
declined by respondent/applicant.
9. Record reveals that in the year 2015, ejectment of the tenant from Flats in q uestion
was sought principally on the ground that the appellant/respondent is rent defaulter and the
Flats in question are required by the respondent/applicant (PBC) bona fidely in good faith for accommodation of its employees. The crucial and decisive poi nt in the present litigation is
that as to whether the PBC has succeeded by leading reliable and sufficient evidence to prove
that the Flats in question are required in good faith for accommodation of its employees. If
this fact stands substantiated on rec ord, the other facts would become a matter of secondary
importance. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the burden to prove the bona fides or good
faith is clearly on the landlord. In present case, I find that the sufficient material has been brought on record to indicate that the respondent/applicant (PBC) requires the Flats in question for accommodation of its employees. The genuine and bona fide need of the PBC has been established satisfactorily as the statement of the AWs and representative of the respondent/applicant on oath regarding the bona -fide requirement is found consistent with
the averments of ejectment application and could not be dislodged in cross -examination or
disproved or rebutted. Whereas, the appellant/respondent has failed to shatter the veracity of
statements of the Aws. It is settled by now that the statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with the application of ejectment and not shaken in cross -examination is sufficient
to prove that his requirement is bona fide. In this regar d, reliance can be placed to the cases
of M/s F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroz 1996 SCMR 1178 and Muhammad Shoaib Alam and others v. Muhammad Iqbal 2000 SCMR 903, wherein it has been held as under:
"That statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with the application for ejectment and not shaken in cross -examination or disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove that
requirement of landlord was bona fide."
10. I am of the considered view that under the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the
Constituti on of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the right of property as a fundamental
right is protected. Admittedly, the right of ownership is superior then the right of tenancy. Thus, the appellant, being inferior of status regarding utilization of the Fl ats in question,
cannot determine the sufficiency or insufficiency. Hence, the Rent Controller has rightly decided the issue No.1 in favour of the respondent/applicant.
11. So far as, the ground of default in payment of monthly rent by the
appellant/respon dent is concerned, learned counsel placed on record receipts of CCD
Account No.G11216 which reveals that the appellant has deposited all the monthly rent. Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant conceded that the appellant/respondent deposited the mon thly rent and did not press the ground of default.
12. The findings of the Rent Controller are based on elaborate, careful and correct
appraisal of evidence and do not suffer from any misreading of the evidence as the property in question is ownership of t he Central Government.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the appellant is directed to vacate the Flats in question within a period of three (3) months subject to payment of monthly rent, failing which the respondent/applicant shall evict the appellant/respondent through proper course of law. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
MQ/115/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.