ABDUL LATIF vs FAQIR Muhammads
This civil petition was filed by an unsuccessful tenant challenging the order of the High Court, which in second appeal affirmed the first appellate court's decree for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide use. The landlord sought eviction asserting that he was occupying rented premises from which he was asked to vacate and possessed no other alternative premises. The petitioner contended that the landlord lacked bona fides because he manufactured jewellery whereas the demised shop was located in a market predominantly meant for selling jewellery. The Supreme Court observed that the landlord had no other premises available and intended to use the disputed property for both manufacturing and selling jewellery. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact established the landlord's genuine requirement, leaving no room for interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the tenant was granted one month's time to vacate the premises with mutual consent.
- Whether the personal bona fide requirement of a landlord is established when he faces eviction from his rented premises and has no other suitable property available?
- Whether carrying on both manufacturing and sale of goods in a shop satisfies the requirement of personal bona fide use for commercial premises?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal infirmity?
ORDER
1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J -This petition is by the unsuccessful tenant whose eviction was sought on the twin grounds of default in payment of rent and for personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller dismissed his application but the first appellate Court reversed this order and granted eviction which order was maintained in the second appeal by the High Court. The findings of the first appellate Court as well as the High Court are based on the evidence that the respondent- landlord was occupying a rented premises, the landlord of which, had called upon him to vacate the premises and that he had no other premises to go to. This finding is sought to be challenged before us on the ground that the respondent-landlord did not possess the requisite bona fides for the landlord was carrying on business of manufacturing jewellery. While the premises in dispute is in Sarafa bazaar where jewellery is sold distinct from being manufactured. The learned counsel however conceded that the landlord had no other premises to go to and it must, therefore, follow that he had no choice but to seek posses--sion of the only premises available to him. Furthermore, there is evidence that the landlord intend not only to use the premises in question for the purpose of manufacturing jewellery but also for selling jewellery. In this view of the matter there is no room for interference by this Court with the finding arrived at by the first appellate Court.
2. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is, with the consent of the learned counsel, appearing for respondent caveator, allowed one month's time to vacate the premises.
Cited by 7 cases
- SHAKEEL AHMED vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND RENT CONTROLLER and 2 2014 YLR 2727
- MUHAMMAD ABID QASMI vs HUMAIRA MUSHEER and 3 otherss 2014 YLR 1226
- Mst. GHAZALA YASMEEN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE 1995 PLD Karachi 171
- NUSRATULLAH vs QURESH AHMAD 1992 CLC 2508
- RAHIM vs KHAIRUNNISA BEGUM 1984 CLC 2566
- AIJAZ HUSSAIN BHATTI vs Mst. AISHA KHATOON 1984 CLC 2622
- AKHTAR JEHAN vs ZAMIR AHMAD 1982 CLC 1923