KUTYANA MEMON ASSOCIATION vs MUHAMMAD ZAFAR NABI KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld the eviction of a tenant by a landlord. The core legal question was whether the landlord had sufficiently established the bona fide personal requirement of the disputed premises for his own business after his compulsory retirement. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the eviction application, but the appellate court and subsequently the High Court reversed this, finding the landlord's need genuine based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the landlord had successfully discharged the burden of proving his bona fide need. The Court affirmed that there is no universal rule regarding the quantum of evidence required to prove a fact in issue, such as personal need; rather, each case must be decided on its own circumstances. The Court rejected the contention that a landlord's bare statement of unemployment is insufficient as a matter of law, establishing that concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a landlord's requirement, based on an appraisal of evidence and attending circumstances, should not be disturbed.
- Does a landlord's bare statement of unemployment and desire to start a business automatically fail to prove bona fide need?
- Is there a hard and fast rule regarding the quantum of evidence required to prove a landlord's personal requirement for premises?
- Can a court disturb concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide need for premises?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J,-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated .17th of September, 1979, by which Second Appeal No, 141 of 1973 was dismissed.
2. ' Upon transfer of the property bearing No, 1-A-763, 0, T. 8/54-55, G2, G3 and G4 by the settlement authorities to the respondent, he served notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, for the payment of rent to him which was settled at Rs, 100 p. m. In March, 1968, he filed an ejectment application on the ground that as he had been retired compulsorily from service and his income from service in Liaquat Medical Hospital was not sufficient to meet his "growing liabilities", he wanted to start his own business and for this purpose he required the possession of the shops. By order dated 24th of March, 1972, the Rent Controller dismissed the application principally on the ground that the evidence of the petitioner had gone unchallenged as he was not cross-examined by the respondent who was absent on that date. In first appeal this conclusion was reversed as the appellate Court felt that there was no reason to disbelieve the respondent on the question of his need as he was without a job and to earn his livelihood, he wanted to install a printing press in the disputed shops with the assistance of his brother who had a printing press. It further held that it was not necessary to examine his brother to corroborate his assertion.
3. ' In second appeal this conclusion was upheld as the High Court was of the opinion that "no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the quantum of evidence required to prove a fact in issue" and "each case would depend upon its own circumstances in this regard and it is for the Court to judge whether the evidence produced sufficiently establishes the fact alleged by applying the well- recognized rule of preponderance of evidence". Applying this rule to the evidence in the case the High Court held : - ' It is well recognized that to occupy his own premises is the prerogative of the landlord. Since it is not disputed that the respondent is not engaged in any gainful pursuit for living, there is no reason to disbelieve his present intention to occupy the premises for setting up a business."
4. ' In the result it dismissed the appeal holding that the respondent had discharged the onus in establishing his bona fide need for setting up a business.
5. ' In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel relied on Barkat Ali v. Sughra and others (1) to contend that the burden is not discharged by the bare and bald statement" of the landlord that he was unemployed and had wanted to start a business to earn his livelihood. Having examined the decision, we are of the view that the observation is too widely stated which cannot be pressed into service in each and every case ; and for that matter we would approve the view of I. Mahmud, J. In Hassan Khan v. Munawar Begum (2) which was followed by the High Court. Accordingly, as the High Court and the first appellate Court had concurrently held upon the appraisal of the statement and the attending circumstances that his requirement was genuine, we see no reason to disturb this finding.
6. ' The petition is without substance and is hereby dismissed.
(1) PLD 1980 Kar. 223 (2) PLD 1976 Kar. 832