MUHAMMAD HANIF vs AHMAD HUSSAIN
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his second appeal in limine, which upheld his ejectment from a rented shop. The respondent landlord had filed an ejectment petition on the grounds of default in rent, impairment of utility by damaging wooden fixtures, and personal bona fide requirement for his jobless graduate son to start a carpet business. The Rent Controller found against the tenant on the grounds of impairment of utility and personal requirement, while ruling in his favor regarding the default in rent, and ordered eviction. The High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The Supreme Court considered the concurrent findings of fact established through evidence regarding the bona fide personal requirement and the damage to fixtures. Holding that the findings were well-founded and unrebutted by the tenant, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, granting four months to vacate the premises subject to the regular payment of rent.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement for ejectment can be interfered with when unrebutted?
- Does damaging wooden fixtures of a rented premises constitute impairment of its utility warranting eviction?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 19th of September 1978, dismissing S. A. O. No. 430 of 1978 in limine.
2. The petitioner was a tenant of a shop bearing No. 97 situate in Anarkali, Lahore, at a rental of Rs.
3. 400 per mensem. The respondent sued for his ejectment on 4th of October 1973, on the grounds: firstly, that he had defaulted in the payment of rent since August 1972; secondly, that by damaging the wooden fixtures of the shop he had impaired its utility; and thirdly, that it was required bona fide for the use of his son, Mazhar Hussain, who was a graduate and being jobless wanted to start carpet business in the premises. Evidence was led to establish that Mazhar Hussain had received training in the business who also appeared as a witness and confirmed that he required the premises for starting his business. Further, the respondent examined himself and denied the suggestion that the requirement was not in good faith as he wanted to enhance the rent which was declined by the petitioner. In rebuttal no evidence was led to controvert the plea of the respondent that the shop was required for the use of his sod. He further deposed that the petitioner had damaged the wooden fixtures which had impaired its utility. On both these grounds the Rent C9ntroller held against the petitioner but rejected the round relating to the default in the payment of rent as the petitioner hauled evidence to establish the regular payment of rent. Accordingly, by order dated 1st of October 1974, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises.
4. There is, therefore, no substance in the petition -which is dismissed. However, we would grant four months time to vacate the shop subject to the payment of rent.