HUSSAINI vs MUKARRAM ALI
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld an ejectment order issued by a Rent Controller against a tenant. The Rent Controller had ordered the eviction of the petitioner from a shop based on two grounds: the landlord's personal need and the tenant's default in rent payment. The petitioner contended that the lower courts had misread the evidence on record. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, concluding that the Rent Controller had properly appreciated the evidence and that the findings of both the Rent Controller and the High Court were legally and factually sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming the eviction order. However, exercising its discretion, the Court granted the petitioner a period of six months to vacate the premises, conditional upon the continued payment of monthly rent, with the stipulation that failure to vacate within this timeframe would result in immediate eviction through execution proceedings, including police assistance if necessary.
- Can a tenant be evicted on the grounds of personal need and default in rent payment?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding rent matters?
- Can the Supreme Court grant a grace period for vacating premises in an eviction case?
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 25-6-2003 in F.R.A. No,1 of 2003 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby the said F.R.A. Was dismissed maintaining the order of ejectment, dated 28-3- 2003 passed by Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case need not to be reiterated as the same are given in the memo. Of petition and the impugned judgment. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction application of respondent in respect of Shop No,2, Ground Floor, Hussaini Plaza, Sadar, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal need and default in payment of rent. The said findings were affirmed by the learned Judge in chambers of High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, as per the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of learned Judge in chambers and that of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained because there has been misreading of evidence on record. We do not find any merit in this contention after going through the record, and find that the learned Rent Controller has properly appreciated the evidence adduced before him and has rightly held that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and further that the respondent needed the shop in question for his personal need. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned Judge in chambers and the learned Rent Controller, hence, no interference is called for. Consequently, leave to appeal is declined and petition is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one year time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises but the learned counsel for the respondent has agreed for maximum period of six months. We find the period of six months would be sufficient for the petitioner to look for another alternate accommodation for shifting his business. Accordingly, we grant six months period to the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to deposit of monthly rent in the office of Rent Controller. In case, on expiry of six months the petitioner fails to vacate the premises, he will be evicted through execution proceedings without notice and with police aid, if necessary.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs SAEED AHMED BUTT and 2 others 2013 CLC 280
- Messrs SHAHKAR AND COMPANY through Partners vs ABDUL HAMEED KARIM 2012 MLD 1572
- Mrs. TAHIRA DILAWAR ALI KHAN through Attorney and 2 others vs Mst. SYEDA 2007 PLD Karachi 50