2011 C L C 1606
[Quetta]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
MEHMOOD KHAN ----Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another ----Respondents
F.A.O. No.125 of 2009, decided on 17th May, 2011.
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S. 13 ---Ejectment of tenant ---Pleadings ---Bona fide personal need ---Non-mention of
intended business ---Effect ---Eviction application cannot be dismissed on the ground that
specific business, intended to be started and carried on in premises in question, is not
specifically given in me morandum of eviction application ---Landlord is not required to
mention in his application the nature / sort of business, nor is required to give source of
capital.
(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S. 13 ---Ejectme nt of tenant ---Bona fide personal need ---Old age of landlord ---Allegation
of selling the property by landlord ---Ejectment application was filed by landlord on the
ground of personal need and the same was allowed by Rent Controller passing eviction order
against tenant ---Plea raised by tenant was that landlord was an old man who was not capable
to start or run a business rather he had intention to sell the premises ---Validity ---Nothing was
available on record to show that landlord had become too old and that it would be difficult for
him to do any business ---Landlord had four sons and his bona fides could not be doubted on
the grounds that he had grown old and he would be assisted by his son in conjunction of
whom he would start business in disputed shop ---Even if landlord had expressed his desire to
sell out the disputed shop that should not be permitted to come in his way in getting his tenant
ejected, if tenant had succeeded otherwise, in establishing his case on the ground of personal
requirement ---It was proved that landlord's demand for vacation of disputed premises had
been made in good faith ---High Court declined to interfere in eviction order passed by Rent
Controller against tenant ---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
(c) West Pakistan Urban R ent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S. 13 ---Ejectment of tenant ---Bona fide personal need ---More than one properties ---
Choice of landlord ---Scope ---Landlord is entitled to choose or pick anyone of his shops for
his personal use and occupation ---Suitability or/ sufficiency of accommodation for landlord
cannot be determined by tenant or Rent Controller ---Landlord can desire to retain specific
property for his use and occupation without any legal difficulty in his way and it is not the
tenant's bus iness to tell the landlord to keep particular property for his use and let out the
other one.
W.N. Kohli for Appellant.
Saleem Lashari and Munir Langove for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th May, 2011.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J .--- This appeal is directed against the order
dated 10th October, 2009, passed by learned Civil Judge -cum-Rent Controller, Pishin,
whereby he accepted the eviction application of respondent No.1 And directed the appellant
to vacate and hand over the posse ssion/of the premises in his occupation within a period of
three months, from the date of the order.
2. The concise facts, arising out of instant appeal, are that the respondent/landlord filed an
eviction application against the appellant in respect of s hop under Khasra No.67, situated at
Band Road, Pishin, on the grounds of default in payment of monthly rent, personal bona fide
use and occupation. It was averred in the eviction application that the said premises, in
occupation of the appellant, were reas onably and bonafidely required by the respondent in
good faith. It was the case of the respondent that, after retirement from government service,
he is jobless and intends to start his own business. It was also alleged in the eviction
application that the appellant is bad paymaster and troublesome tenant.
3. The eviction application was vehemently opposed by the appellant, who, inter alia, pleaded
that demised premises were not required by the respondents for his personal use and
occupation. It was denied that the appellant is a bad paymaster. It was averred that the
respondent is an old man of about 75 years, having four sons, who are government servants.
The respondent, actually, wanted to evict the appellant in order to sale out the same on higher
rates .
4. The Rent Controller -cum-Civil Judge, Pishin, out of the pleading of the parties, has framed
five issues. To prove the same, respondent/applicant has produced two witnesses, namely,
AWs Muhammad Hanif and Jaffar Khan, and also recorded his statement on oath. In rebuttal,
appellant has produced two witnesses, namely, Abdullah, Habibullah, and recorded his
statement on oath.
5. The Rent Controller, after examining the evidence and hearing the arguments of the
respective parties, allowed the eviction a pplication vide impugned order dated 10th October,
2009, and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises
to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of impugned order.
6. The appellant being aggr ieved by the impugned order dated 10th October, 2009 of the
learned Rent Controller has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of
appeal.
7. Mr. W.N. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Rent Controller has
misread and misappreciated the evidence and drawn conclusions contrary to the record. The
respondent could not prove his personal bona fide, as the respondent has attained the age
almost 75 years and is not capable to run any business. He further submitted t hat the mala
fides of the respondent is also evident from the fact that he has not disclosed the nature of
business. He argued that the respondent, besides the disputed shop, also owned other
properties. He also submitted that the only aim of the responden t dispossess the appellant
from the shop in question and to sale out the same on high rate.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Saleem Lashari, learned counsel for the respondent, has
vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and suppor ted the
impugned order. He also contended that the respondent has proved his case through reliable
and trustworthy evidence and the eviction order has been passed by the Rent Controller in
accordance with law.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The main
contention, raised by Mr. W.N Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Rent
Controller was required to dismiss the eviction application filed by the respondent, as it does
not purport specifically the business intended to be started by the respondent. It is a well -
established principle of law that eviction application cannot be dismissed on the ground that
specific business, intended to be started and carried on in premises in question, is not
speci fically given in the memorandum of eviction application. Landlord is not required to
mention in his application the nature/sort of business, nor is required to give source of capital.
10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the respo ndent being an old man
of about 75 years, is not capable to start or run a business, is also devoid of force, because
there is nothing on record to show that the respondent has become too old and that it would
be difficult for him to do any business. Admit tedly, the respondent has four sons and his bona
fides cannot be doubted on the grounds that he has grown old and he would be assisted by his
son in conjunction of whom he would start business in the disputed shop.
11. As far as owning of other propertie s by the respondent is concerned, admittedly, the
landlord is entitled to choose or pick anyone of his shops for his personal use and occupation.
The suitability or sufficiency of an accommodation for a landlord cannot be determined by a
tenant or the Rent Controller. Landlord's desire to retain a specific property for his use and
occupation could do so without any legal difficulty in his way and it is none of tenant's
business to tell landlord to keep particular property for his use and let out the other o ne. The
landlord is entitled to choose or pick anyone of his shops for his, personal use and the
contention that landlord should have got vacated some other shop is not valid.
12. Similarly, the last contention of Mr. W.N. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant, that
the aim, behind institution of the eviction application, is to dispossess the appellant from the
said shop and sale out the same on higher rate is also devoid of any force. I am inclined to
hold the view that even if the respondent has expr essed his desire to sell out the disputed shop
that should not be permitted to come in his way in getting his tenant ejected, if he has
succeeded, otherwise, in establishing his case on the ground of personal requirement.
13. The upshot of the above disc ussion is that from the evidence on record, it is proved that
respondents' demand for vacation of the disputed premises has been made in good faith.
Accordingly, the appeal has no merit which is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
The appellan t will deliver the vacant possession of the shop in his occupation to the
respondent within six months of this order.
Appeal dismissed.
M.H./42/Q 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.