Khalid Mehmood Versus Arbab Muhammad Arif
Gul Hassan Tareen, J.--- This first appeal from order, filed under section 15, the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance-VI, 1959 ( the Ordinance ), arises out of an eviction order dated 22 July 2025 ( impugned order ) passed by the learned Civil Judge-IV/ Rent Controller, Quetta ( Rent Controller ). The Rent Controller allowed the respondent s eviction application and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days.
2. Briefly, the respondent filed an eviction application against the appellant for the shop, Municipal No.9-23/303-F, Double Road, Quetta ( the Shop ). He alleged that his brother, Arbab Muhammad Asif, had rented out the Shop to the appellant for a period of 12 years in exchange for a monthly rent of Rs.800/-, as per the contract dated 26 October 1991. This was followed by another contract dated 16 April 1996, whereby the rent was enhanced to Rs.1000/- and it was also settled that the rent of the Shop would be increased by Rs.100/- per month every four years. The appellant has proven to be a poor paymaster, having failed to pay the rent for the Shop effective from September 2015. He also sought eviction of the appellant on the ground that his son, Muhammad Waqas, is jobless and intends to start a business in the Shop; therefore, he requires the premises for the personal, bona fide need of his son.
3. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit alleging that the respondent does not require the Shop in good faith for his son s use. He further alleged that the respondent filed two eviction applications against tenants of two shops, Khalid Pervaiz and Jahangir Khan regarding the same ground. These applications were subsequently compromised and withdrawn by the respondent following an enhancement of rent.
On these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:
1. Whether, as per agreement and last agreement dated 16-04-1996, the respondent did not pay rent with increasing amount of Rs.100/- p.m after every four years?
2. Whether, the respondent is bad pay master?
3. Whether, the shop is required for personal bona fide use of Arbab Muhammad Waqas?
4. Whether, the shop was given on Pagri, the land owner would not be in position to file eviction application?
5. Whether applicant is entitled for any relief?
6. The relief?
The respondent examined two witnesses and, through an attorney appeared as his own witness. The appellant examined two witnesses and also testified as a witness on his own behalf. He produced seven rent receipts (Ex.R/1 to Ex.R/7), three challans (Ex.R/8 to Ex.R/10), and agreements dated 26 October 1991 and 16 April 1996 (Ex.R/11 and Ex./R/12). After evidence was completed, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction application vide the impugned order dated 22 July 2025.
4. Mr. Aftab Ahmed Lone, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the respondent failed to prove that he required the Shop for the use of his son, Muhammad Waqas. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to two eviction applications filed by the respondent. He submitted that the respondent filed an eviction application against the tenant of a shop, Khalid Pervaiz, on the ground that his son, Muhammad Waqas, is jobless; however, he entered into a compromise with the said Khalid Pervaiz, whereby the monthly rent of the shop was enhanced to Rs.15000/- per month and the eviction application was withdrawn. According to the learned counsel, the respondent filed a second eviction application against the tenant of an adjacent shop, Jahangir Khan, alleging the need for the said shop for his jobless son, Muhammad Waqas. However, the said application was withdrawn following a compromise with the tenant, whereby the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs.15000/-. He submitted that the respondent s attorney and his witness admitted that two previous eviction applications, withdrawn based on compromise, were filed; thus, the respondent s third eviction application was not competent; however, the learned Rent Controller committed an illegality by deciding the issue of personal need against the appellant. He relied on the following case laws:
Muhammad Inayat v. Saleh Muhammad
Abid Masood v. Dilshad Khan
Zohra Bibi v. Additional District Judge
Muhammad Zakria Kansi v. Dr. Bashir Ahmed
Muhammad Shafi v. Shahid Nadeem
Salamat Ali v. Gulzar Ahmed
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Farooq Anwar, submitted that the respondent did not cause any shop to be vacated for the use of his jobless son, Muhammad Waqas. Therefore, the contention of the appellant s learned counsel is incorrect. He further submitted that the mere filing of eviction applications against other tenants, and the subsequent compromises reached with them, does not bar a landlord from seeking to evict another tenant. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that if respondent s son fails to occupy the Shop, the appellant can make an application under section 13 (4), the Ordinance for restoration of the possession of the Shop.
6. I have heard the counsel and gone through the record and law on the legal propositions involved in the case.
7. After going through the pleadings, evidence and contentions of both sides, the following three points fall for determination in this appeal:- a. do the compromises in two previously filed and withdrawn eviction applications temporarily debar a landlord from filing a third eviction application within a short time on the same ground (son s use) against a tenant of a shop situated in the same building? b. did the respondent conceal material facts in the eviction application? c. did the respondent prove his son s alleged need?
Point for determination (a), the decision on it, and the reasons therefor:-
8. On 30 December 2023, respondent filed Eviction Application 01/2024 against the appellant. He sought eviction that the appellant has failed to pay the rent for the Shop effective from September 2015, and he requires the Shop in good faith for the personal use of his jobless son, Muhammad Waqas and intends to start a business in the Shop. The Rent Controller decided issues 3, 4 and 5 in favour of the respondent while the rest, against him. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction application on the ground that the respondent requires the Shop for the use of his jobless son. The respondent pleaded for his son s need in the following words:
4 .Moreover, the applicant informed him personally as well as through his Munshi namely Haji Wazir Ali to vacate the same as the said shop is also required for personal bona fide use of his son Arbab Muhammad Waqas Kasi who is jobless to start his own business but the respondent did not pay any heed to it, hence this eviction application.
The appellant denied the alleged need of the respondent s son in his counter-affidavit. He pleaded that the respondent had filed two eviction applications against the tenants of nearby shops; however, both applications were withdrawn on the basis of compromises when the said tenants agreed to an enhancement of the monthly rent. Section 13(3)(a)(ii), the Ordinance outlines the circumstances under which a landlord may seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building; the section reads as follows:-
13(3)(a). A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-
(i)
(ii) in the case of a non-residential building or scheduled or rented land, if-
(a) he requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his children;
(b) he or his said child is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the case may be, suitable for his needs at the time, and
(c) he has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance in the said urban area:
Provided that
13 (3)(b). The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application.
A perusal of the provisions of section 13(3)(a)(ii) reveals three prime requirements for a landlord to fulfill before filing an eviction application.
(i) that he requires the premises in good faith for himself or for the use of any of his children;
(ii) that he was not occupying any other building in the concerned urban area; and
(iii) he had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause.
And under section 13(3)(b), if the Controller is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises and if not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the eviction application.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on a landlord to prove the afore discussed mandatory requirements of section 13(3)(a)(ii) and section 13(3)(b), the Ordinance. Where a landlord requires a premises for his own use or for the use of any of his children, he must plead and then substantiate through evidence that, he requires the premises in good faith . The term good faith lacks a statutory definition in the Ordinance. Section 3(27), the Balochistan General Clauses Act, 1956 statutorily defines the term good faith which reads as: -
A thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not.
The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove the fact that he requires the premises in good faith as good faith is not an external or physical fact capable of being perceived by the senses, but a state of mind capable of proof only by evidence or conduct. The term bona fide appears to be synonymous with good faith . Therefore, facts showing the existence of any state of mind (for instance, intention, good faith, negligence etc) are relevant when the existence of any such state of mind is a fact in issue or a relevant fact under Article 27, the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order-10, 1984. Article 27 reads as: -
27. Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant .
In this case, the existence of state of mind of the respondent; that is good faith was a fact in issue. He alleged that he requires the Shop in good faith for his son s use. The initial burden is always on the landlord to prove good faith and bona fide need. And if he succeeds in discharging that burden, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove that the premises is not required in good faith .
9. The appellant, in his counter-affidavit, denied and challenged the claimed good faith of the respondent, by asserting that the respondent had filed two eviction applications against the tenants of two different shops on the same ground that, he requires the shop in good faith for the use of his son, Muhammad Waqas, and since the eviction applications were compromised, therefore, the respondent has not filed this eviction application in good faith . The respondent examined, Shah Wali (AW-2). In his cross-examination, the AW-2 admitted that, he had appeared in the rent cases of Khalid Pervaiz and Naik Muhammad. The respondent, through his attorney, Wazir Ali, appeared as his own witness. The relevant part of his cross-examination is reproduced hereunder:
Q.19. It is correct that in the former cases, Arbab Muhammad Arif raised the ground that he required the shop for his son; voluntarily stated that those two tenants have compromised with Arbab Muhammad Arif and started paying enhanced rent.
Q.20. It is correct that I have executed new tenancy contracts with Naik Muhammad and Khalid Pervaiz.
Q.21. According to new tenancy contracts, the enhanced rent of Rs.15,000/- is now being paid.
Q.22. It is correct that during the pendency of this case, the tenancy contracts have been executed with the said tenants.
Q.23. It is correct that during the pendency of this case, a shop named Balochistan Sanitary was caused to be vacated by Muhammad Arif.
Q.24. It is correct that the shop named Balochistan Sanitary is situated two shops down from the tenant Khalid Mehmood.
Q.25. It is correct that the area of the Balochistan Sanitary shop was bigger than this shop.
Q.27. Arbab Muhammad Waqas is 42 years old and has a bachelor s in degree.
Q.29. Arbab Waqas carries on a business in vehicles and spare parts.
10. A perusal of the record reveals that on 27 December 2021, the respondent filed Eviction Application 11/2021 against a tenant, Khalid Pervaiz. Paragraph 4 of that application and paragraph 4 of the instant application are stereotyped copies of each other. In the said eviction application, the respondent pleaded his son Muhammad Waqas s need as under:
Moreover, the applicant informed him personally as well as through his Munshi namely Haji Wazir Ali to vacate the same as the said shop is also required for personal bona fide use of his son Arbab Muhammad Waqas Kasi who is jobless to start his own business but the respondent did not pay any heed to it, hence this eviction application.
The respondent settled the said eviction application, under which the tenant, Khalid Pervaiz, paid Rs.50,000/- as advance to the respondent, and the monthly rent of the shop was increased to Rs.15,000/- per month. A new tenancy agreement was executed with the tenant, and the learned Civil Judge-V/Rent Controller, Quetta allowed the respondent to withdraw the eviction application vide order dated 25 October 2023. When this eviction application was still pending, on 25 March 2022, respondent filed a second Eviction Application 03/2022 against a tenant, Jahangir Khan. In the later application, respondent again pleaded his son Muhammad Waqas s need. He again settled the said eviction application with the tenant, and the learned Civil Judge-V/Rent Controller, Quetta allowed the respondent to withdraw the eviction application vide order dated 27 December 2023. In the subsequent eviction application, respondent failed to disclose that he had already filed an Eviction Application 11/2021 against another tenant, Khalid Pervaiz, for the personal use of his son. Following the withdrawal of the subsequent eviction application on 27 December 2023, the respondent filed the instant (third) eviction application on 30 December 2023, asserting bona fide personal need for his jobless son, Muhammad Waqas. Based on the cross-examinations of AW-2 and the attorney, as well as the withdrawal orders of the prior eviction applications, it is evident that the third eviction application was filed with mala fide intentions to evict the appellant on false grounds or to force an enhancement of the monthly rent, rather than out of a bona fide need. Respondent did not act honestly (filing the third eviction application). The previously filed eviction applications, withdrawal orders and fresh tenancy agreements, were relevant under Article 27, the Q.S.O showing the existence of the state of mind of the respondent that he filed the eviction application with mala fide intentions. Thus, the respondent failed to substantiate that he required the Shop in good faith for his son s use. He failed to prove the prime requirements of section 13(3)(b)(ii), the Ordinance, and since his claim was not bona fide , the Rent Controller should have dismissed the eviction application under section 13(3)(b), the Ordinance. By filing two eviction applications for his son s use and simultaneously compromising them through enhanced rent, the respondent has cast serious doubt on the good faith of his claim. I may place reliance on the case law, Atoomal v. Allah Bux (PLD 1985 Karachi 650). The case law reads as follows: -
As regards the first contention, it may be observed that the respondent in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he had filed another rent application against one Bansilal on the ground of personal requirement on the very day when the present rent application was filed. It is an admitted position that this rent application was compromised on the day when the order of ejectment was passed in the present application by enhancing the rent from Rs. 18 to Rs. 100, per month. In my view the learned District Judge has erred in not taking into consideration the subsequent event which had taken place after the passing of the ejectment order which was very much material which he was entitled to take into consideration. It is true that a landlord has a choice to pick up any of his property for the purpose of his personal requirement but once he picks up two shops for his personal requirement simultaneously the compromise in one rent application by enhancing rent would adversely reflect on the bona fide of the landlord. It was urged by Mr. Daud Baloch that the respondent could not have been sure that he would obtain the possession of both the shops and therefore he had filed two cases so that he might obtain possession on shop. In my view, if a landlord owns one hundred shops he cannot file ejectment cases against all the one hundred tenants on the ground of personal requirement on the reasoning advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent.
11. In the impugned eviction order, the Rent Controller placed reliance on section 13(4), the Ordinance, and held that, if a landlord or his son fails to occupy the Shop within one month of the date of obtaining possession, the appellant may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored topossession of the Shop (paragraph 11). The provisions of section 13(4) would attract when a landlord established his alleged good faith and obtained possession of the tenement, and thereafter fails to occupy it within one month of the date of obtaining possession, or having been so occupied is re-let within two months of the said date to any person other than the original tenant. Thus, a landlord has to prove good faith by leading evidence before obtaining an eviction order, and he cannot be exonerated from this obligation in view of section 13(4). Where the Rent Controller is satisfied that the alleged need of the landlord is not bona fide , he shall make an order rejecting the eviction application under section 13(3) (b), the Ordinance, instead of making resort to section 13(4). Reliance is placed on the case law, Sardar Nabeel Wali v. Addl. District Judge published in PLD 2000 SC 829 . The relevant principle in the case law reads as follows:
Learned counsel lastly contended that petitioner's bona fide can be tested by pressing into service the provisions of section 13(4) of the Ordinance according to which a safeguard is provided to the respondent/tenant that if the petitioner failed to establish high standard nursery then in that case they would be entitled for reinduction. In our opinion this argument carries no weight because, notwithstanding the fact that whether there is a safeguard available to a tenant in terms of section 13(4) of the Ordinance, but prima facie the initial burden of proof of bona fides is on the, landlord as it has been held in the case of Dr. A.R. Khan (supra). Relevant para. from this case is reproduced as under:
"As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the provisions of subsection (4) of section 13 of the Ordinance have been enacted in favour of a tenant to restore him the possession, if an landlord has failed to prove by his subsequent action that his bona fide requirement as alleged in the ejectment proceedings, has not come true. These provisions do not relieve the landlord of the basic onus on him to prove affirmatively that he does require the premises for his bona fide, requirement or that of his male child. "
Thus, the findings of the learned Rent Controller, being the result of a misinterpretation of section 13(4), are not sustainable.
Therefore, the point for determination (a) is answered in the affirmative. Point for determination (b), the decision on it, and the reasons therefor:-
12. The respondent concealed material facts from the Rent Controller while filing the eviction application. He did not mention that he had filed two eviction applications for his son, Muhammad Waqas s need. These applications were compromised, and subsequently withdrawn after the rent was enhanced and fresh tenancy contracts were executed with the tenants. To demonstrate good faith , the respondent was obligated to disclose both the filing and the ultimate fate of the applications. In his cross-examination, the respondent s attorney stated that Arbab Muhammad Waqas carries on the business of vehicles and their spare parts (Q.29). The respondent concealed this fact in his eviction application that his son is carrying on a business of vehicles and their spare parts. The attorney also admitted that during pendency of the eviction application, the respondent got vacated a shop which was larger in area then the Shop (Qs. 23 and 25). His intentional concealment of these material facts establishes that he approached the Court with unclean hands, casting a serious doubt on his claimed good faith .
Therefore, the point for determination (b) is answered in the affirmative. Point for determination (c), the decision on it and the reasons therefor:
13. The respondent also failed to appear in person in support of his eviction application to demonstrate the claimed good faith . Though, there is no absolute rule that in every case, the landlord must appear in support of his claim for the need of his children, in some cases, non-appearance of the landlord on oath may affect his case. He did not offer any reason preventing him from appearing on oath before the learned Rent Controller. Thus, in this matter, the respondent was required to appear on oath, especially since he had previously filed two eviction applications for his son s need. He should have clarified why he did not pursue those applications and why he settled the tenancy by increasing the rent, thereby making himself available for cross-examination by the appellant. In Sardar Nabeel Wali s case, the Apex Court also held as under: -
We may mention here that in some of the cases non appearance of the landlord may affect his case adversely particularly as in the instant cases on one hand petitioner in eviction application admits that the rented land subject-matter of the proceedings is surrounded by agricultural land owned by him and on the other hand his contention is that he intends to establish high standard nursery on the rented land in order to increase his income, therefore, in view of such circumstances he was in a better position to explain as to why he is not occupying the agricultural land instead of dispossessing the tenants who have raised construction to run their commercial business. It is also important to note that the attorney of the petitioner had admitted that petitioner is also selling the agricultural land owned by him, therefore, if he would have appeared in the witness-box he would have offered an explanation that what are the circumstances under which he is selling his property. Thus for these reasons in our opinion it was all the more necessary for the petitioner to have appeared personally in the witness-box. Be that as it may, learned Judge in Chambers of High Court has not non-suited the petitioner merely for this reason that he did not appear in the witness-box except making passerby remarks that the petitioner did not appear personally to state on oath that he needed the premises for his personal bona fide need. Simultaneously, the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that it is no requirement of law that he ought to have appeared in person and the statement of his attorney provided sufficient standard of proof in this regard and after making these observations the Court opined that when he does not come forward to make a statement and has no genuine ground to offer for abstaining from the cross-examination, the evidence in substitution cannot be treated at par. At this stage reference once again may be made to the judgment which has been relied upon by the counsel for petitioner in this behalf. There too, it was observed that there can be legitimate causes and reasons for a suitor to cause for non-appearance in Court meaning thereby that some reason is required to be offered by the landlord as to why he himself is abstaining from appearing in Court, therefore, we are inclined to hold that in the instant case the petitioner failed to offer any explanation as to why he did not opt to appear in support of his claim because we are of the opinion as it has been observed hereinabove that if he himself had entered into witness-box he would have given better explanation to substantiate his bona fides in occupying the rented land the subject-matter of the instant proceedings.
14. Further more, the respondent failed to establish that his son is jobless. In his cross-examination, the respondent s attorney stated that, Arbab Muhammad Waqas carries on the business of vehicles and their spare parts (Q.29). The respondent concealed this fact in his eviction application that his son is carrying on a business of vehicles and their spare parts. The attorney also admitted that during pendency of the eviction application, the respondent got vacated a shop which was larger in area then the Shop (Qs. 23 and 25). The said shop was situated two shops away from the Shop. However, instead of occupying the larger premises, the respondent was bent on proceeding with this eviction application, merely to compel the appellant to vacate or to submit to a rent enhancement. He had an opportunity to show that the shop that fell vacant during pendency of the eviction application was not suitable for the use of his son. Thus, instead of proving good faith , the record reflects that the respondent filed the eviction application with a mala fide intention. I rely on the precedent established in Abid Masood v. Dilshad Khan case published in 1995 SCMR 146 . The case law reads as: -
We have, however, perused the various orders passed by the Courts below and find that the petitioners owned numerous shops in the building and during the pendency of these proceedings got vacated some shops which were let out to tenants. In post-remand proceedings the petitioners had opportunity to lead evidence to show that the shops having fallen vacant during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings were not suitable for their use but led no evidence in this behalf. The perusal of the order of the Rent Controller, shows that the evidence produced by the petitioners was vague and fell short of proving their bona fide personal need for the shop in question.
Thus, the point for determination (c) is answered in the negative.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and appears to have overlooked the provisions of section 13(3)(b)(ii), section 13(3)(b) and section 13(4), the Ordinance, and therefore, committed illegality. The impugned eviction order is vitiated by the non-reading of material evidence on record, specially admissions made by AW-2 and the respondent s attorney during cross-examination. The learned Rent Controller failed to render findings regarding the claimed good faith of the respondent, specially with reference to previous eviction applications filed for the personal need of same son; therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
Consequently, I allow this appeal. As a result, the impugned eviction order dated 22 July 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge-VI/Rent Controller, Quetta is hereby set-aside, and the Eviction Application 01/2024 stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
UN/25/Bal. Appeal allowed.