Sh. MUHAMMAD ALAM vs Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the ejectment order passed by the Additional District Judge. The landlady sought the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed shop on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed the decision, finding the personal need duly established, a view subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a pardanashin lady's plea of personal need for conducting business is mala fide or lacking in bona fides merely due to her status or previous disputes between the tenant and her husband. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' concurrent findings on the bona fide personal need were well-reasoned, supported by precedent, and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that the pardanashin status of a landlady and minor disputes with her husband do not inherently negate the bona fides of her personal requirement for ejectment.
- Whether the personal need of a pardanashin lady for business can be considered lacking in bona fides merely due to her status?
- Does a prior dispute between a tenant and a landlord's husband render an eviction application for personal need mala fide?
ORDER
' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about Shop No, II-13-R-I/B, situated at Railway Road, Kasur. Mst. Zahida Parveen (hereinafter called the landlady) filed an application for eviction of Sh. Muhammad Alam petitioner/tenant from the aforesaid shop on the ground of-(so far as relevant for the present order)-personal need. The application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 29th April, 1979. The landlady filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 12th July 1979, whereby he held that the personal need of the landlady was duly established on the record. After giving this finding he reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller and passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed a second appeal being S. A.
0. No, 533 of 1979 in the High Court but without any success as the same was dismissed on 2nd December, 1979.
3. The petitioner/tenant has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. Learned counsel has tried to argue that the landlady was a pardanashin lady for as such the plea of personal need for doing business in the shop was not bona fide, which according to the petitioner was put forward simply to secure eviction of the petitioner who had quarreled with the husband of the landlady about opening of a gate in the shop. The Courts below have attended to this matter and have held that this was not sufficient by itself to establish lack of bona fide on the part of the landlady. In this respect the High Court followed a precedent of this Court a reported in Abdul Haq v. Mst. Zubaida Khatoon and others (1). The view taken by the Courts below is supported by sound reasons and the above quoted precedent of this Court and as such calls for no interference.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed,
(1) 1969 SCMR 222