Haji ABDUL QADIR MOTIWALA vs SAIFUDDIN AHMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner regarding the first floor of a property in Nazimabad, Karachi. The eviction was originally sought on grounds of default in rent payment and the respondent's personal need. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment based on personal requirement, a decision affirmed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the respondent had previously vacated the ground floor of the same premises after inducting the petitioner as a tenant on the first floor. The petitioner contended that this prior vacation triggered the application of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(c) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which restricts eviction if a landlord has vacated a similar building without sufficient cause. The Supreme Court found that the points raised regarding the applicability of this statutory provision and the respondent's admission of prior residence required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondent's prior vacation of the ground floor barred the current eviction claim.
- Does the prior vacation of a portion of a building by a landlord without sufficient cause bar an eviction claim based on personal need under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Whether the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(c) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 are attracted when a landlord has previously vacated a part of the same premises?
- Section 13(3)(a)(i)(c), Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J. Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 24-4-1983 passed in the first Rent Appeal No. 225 of 1982 whereby the petitioner has been evicted from the first floor of house on Plot No. 8, Row No. 4, Sub-Block C of Block I, Nazimabad, Karachi.
2. The petitioner was tenant of the aforesaid premises wherefrom his eviction was sought on the ground of default in the payment of monthly rent from September, 1975 onwards and also on the ground of personal need of the respondent. This petition was contested by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent herein. The first appeal was filed in the Sind High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 24-4-1983.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent had vacated the ground floor of the house in question after inducting the petitioner as his tenant in respect of the first floor of the said house and that the A provisions of section 13 (3) (a) (i) (c) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordi-- nance, 1959 were fully attracted to the facts of the present case. The relevant provision reads as follows "(c) be has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance in the said urban area."
The learned counsel also referred to the statement of the respondent wherein he has admitted that he used to reside in the ground floor of the same premises and that the petitioner was also residing in the upper portion of the tenement when he vacated the ground floor. The points raised need considera--petition. Leave is granted to consider the same. Security Rupees two thousand and five hundred only. To be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if desired.