KARIM BAKHSH vs Hajiarthi KHAN AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 8th of June, 1982, which dismissed the second appeal and upheld the concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the personal bona fide need and intention to reconstruct could be proved through the statement of the landlord's attorney instead of the landlord himself, and whether impairment of utility and previous litigation findings justified ejectment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's large family, lack of residential accommodation, and the impairment of the premises' utility by installing oil extracting machines were fully supported by evidence, and the absence of the landlord from the witness box did not vitiate the claim. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down that an attorney's statement coupled with sufficient documentary and oral evidence can lawfully substantiate a landlord's bona fide personal need and reconstruction intent in ejectment proceedings.
- Can a landlord's bona fide personal need and intention to reconstruct be legally established through the statement of his attorney instead of the landlord appearing personally in the witness box?
- Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding ejectment recorded by the Rent Controller and appellate authorities can be interfered with in second appeal when supported by sufficient evidence?
- Does the installation of machinery and making alterations that impair the utility of leased premises constitute a valid ground for the tenant's ejectment?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J. -Karim Bakhah, a tenant under orders of ejectment$ seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Pesahawar High Court dated 8th of June, 1982, whereby his second appeal against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and upheld in appeal was dismissed.
2. The respondent was the transferee of the disputed property in Dera Ismail Khan. The premises are said to be in possession of Karim Bakhsh and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In the first round of litigation when the respon--dent No. 1 sought the eviction of the petitioner and others he failed in the High Court as his application was considered to be premature in view of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 which provided to the occupants protection against eviction for a period of six years after notice of transfer. The landlord again sued the petitioner and other tenants for eviction on the ground that he needed the property for his own family and had the plan sanctioned from the local authority for its reconstruction and that the petitioner had damaged the property. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered ejectment of the peti--tioner. The District Judge as the first appellate authority upheld it.
3. The High Court in second appeal declined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord had not himself appeared to state about his bona fide need or his intention to reconstruct the property. His attorney appeared and made a statement and that should not be considered sufficient. It was also said that reliance should not have been placed on the first round of litigation wherein the application of the landlord for evicting the petitioner was held to be premature.
5. As regards the personal need of the landlord, we find that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Rent Controller that the family of the landlord respondent consists of three wives, fourteen daughters and three sons and that he had no house to live in Dera Ismail Khan proper, though he was conduct mg his business there. It was also found on good evidence that by installing oil extracting machines in the premises and making alterations its utility had been impaired. The plan duly sanctioned by the local authority for it reconstruction was also placed on record and duly proved. In the circumstances the evidence on record was sufficient to warrant the finding of fact recorded by all the authorities and the mere fact that the landlord did not appear in the witness- box was no ground for rejecting the claim. Leave to appeal-is therefore refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- RASHID AHMED Versus AKHTARI JEHARN 1988 CLC 262
- Ch. NABI BUX vs Malik NASIR AHMED and 2 others 1987 MLD 442