NAZIR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal and confirmed the order of the Additional District Judge directing the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. The Rent Controller had initially rejected the landlord's ejectment application, but the appellate court and subsequently the High Court accepted the landlord's plea that the premises were bona fide required for personal use and occupation. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord's simultaneous prayer for enhancement of rent and ownership of other shops negated the bona fides of his personal use requirement. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the bona fide personal need were based on conclusive evidence and that the assertions regarding other properties belonging to the landlord were unsubstantiated. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, granting the petitioner time to vacate subject to the clearance of rent.
- Whether simultaneous prayer for enhancement of rent renders a landlord's claim for personal use mala fide?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding bona fide personal requirement under rent laws?
- Whether ownership of other properties in the same locality disproves the bona fide requirement of a demised premises by a landlord?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 24-12-1980 dismissing peti--tioner's second appeal and thereby confirming the order of the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, by which the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to his landlord, respondent herein.
2. The Rent Controller rejected respondent's, applicaton for petitioner's ejectment but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur accepted respondent's plea that he bona fide required the demised premises for personal use and his view was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the High Court.
3. Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the respondents had simultaneously prayed for enhancement of rent and this by itself was sufficient to prove that his plea that he bona fide required the premises for personal use was not maintainable inasmuch as respondent owned 9 shops in the same locality out of which two are lying vacant and hence his plea that he required the demised premises for his personal use is mala fide for this reason also.
4. Both these submissions have been rejected by the learned Single Judge in the High Court for the cogent reason that "the evidence have conclusively proved that the respondent required the shop in dispute bona fide for his personal use and occupation" and that the petitioner had also failed to substantiate the assertion that "the shops referred to by him in fact belonged to the sons of the respondents".
5. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.
6. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner requests that petitioner may be granted two months' time to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent as he has to make arrangements for shifting of his business to some other place. The request is granted provided the petitioner deposits rent in Court in terms of the orders already, passed in the case.