Pakistan Case Law
2025 SCMR 1691

SALAHUDDIN AHMED Versus KHURRAM SULTAN ABBASI

โญ Prefer in Google
Citation2025 SCMR 1691
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Judge(s)Athar Minallah and Shahid Bilal Hassan

ORDER

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.--- This petition has been directed against judgment dated 27.09.2024 of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in F.R.A. No. 06 of 2018.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. It is observed that it is the sole choice and prerogative of the landlord to choose the premises which better suits him as he is the best judge of his personal need and he is not under any legal obligation to act upon dictation of the tenant. Personal bona fide need has been accepted as sufficient reason to seek eviction of the tenant. 1

3. So far as the claim of the petitioner that he has entered into an agreement with the vendor and has purchased the demised premises, for which he has instituted suit for specific performance, is concerned, it is an established principle that if a tenant denies the proprietary rights of the landlord on the ground of any agreement to sell, then he is bound to first of all deliver the possession of the premises in question and then to contest his proprietary rights in the property and if ultimately he succeeds in getting relief from the Court of competent jurisdiction and decree is passed in his favour he can enforce the same according to law with all its consequences. 2 Moreover, in absence of any evidence in rebuttal of title of landlord, there would be a strong presumption of existence of tenancy between the parties. 3 This Court has held that:- 4

'12. Thus, we conclude that as after expiration of the tenancy period, a tenant, though can continue to hold over the possession of the rented premises, but his tenancy is rendered invalid, in that, it has come to an end and if there is no express consent of the landlord to extend the tenancy period the tenant shall be guilty of having infringed the condition of tenancy, rendering him liable to be evicted under section 17(2)(ii)(b) of the Ordinance, 2001.'

4. In view of the above, we find it not a fit case for grant of leave. Resultantly, leave is refused, consequent whereof the petition stands dismissed.

UN/S-18/SC Petition dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.