Mirza YOUSUF MUSTAFA BAIG vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which affirmed an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the landlady’s claim of personal bona fide requirement for the residential premises was sufficiently established, particularly in light of the tenant's contention that the landlady failed to prove she was residing in rented accommodation. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment order was valid, noting that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlady's bona fide requirement were supported by sufficient evidence. The Court rejected the tenant's argument as irrelevant, emphasizing that the absence of proof regarding the landlady's current rented status did not negate her established need for the premises, especially given the lack of evidence that she owned alternative accommodation. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use is not defeated solely by a failure to prove current residence in rented property, provided the requirement is otherwise substantiated by evidence.
- Is a landlord required to prove they are currently residing in rented accommodation to establish a bona fide requirement for their own property?
- Can an ejectment order be sustained based on concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement?
- Does the failure to produce evidence of alternative ownership by the landlord support a tenant's defense against eviction for personal use?
ORDER
' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-The dispute in this case relates to residential premises situate at Nazimabad, Karachi, which is in the occupation of the petitioner as a tenant of the respondent.
2. The XVIth Rent Controller, Karachi by his order dated 4-11-1982, on the application of the landlady, directed the ejectment of the petitioner, on the ground that the premises were required in good faith by the landlady for her own occupation and use as well as for her children. The plea raised 'in defence on the part of the petitioner that the landlady was occupying another house of her own and was disentitled from getting possession of the disputed premises, was rejected by the learned Rent Controller, as no such evidence had been produced by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal before the Sind High Court and a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissed in limine the appeal as per the impugned order dated 22-12-1982.
The learned Single Judge affirmed the finding of the Rant Controller and held that there are six members of the respondent's family who are to be accommodated in the disputed premises and nothing had been brought on the record by the petitioner "to indicate that the respondent was putting up in a house owned by her or that there are not six members of the family". On re- examining the evidence the learned Judge held that there was sufficient evidence on record coupled with the admission of the petitioner that he had promised to vacate the premises as far back as in September, 1973, which sufficiently established the case of personal bona fide requirement on the part of the landlady.
4. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the landlady had not established that she was residing in rented accommodation and that the document produced in the evidence by her attorney (at page 52 of the paper book) was not a receipt of the rent paid by her but the receipt for the property tax paid for Mst. Fashin Begum. Nothing was, however, urged to assail the finding concurrently arrived at by the Rent Controller and the learned Judge in Chambers that the landlady had established her bona fide requirement by sufficient evidence. The only contention advanced was that the landlady was not residing in a rented accommodation. Mr. Amir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, very fairly conceded that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence that the landlady owns another house anywhere and indeed no other evidence was pointed out on the record except the bald oral assertion of the petitioner. Even if there is no evidence that the landlady was occupying rented accommodation, the fact remains that there is no evidence that she owns the house in which she is presently living.
The contention advanced is, therefore, wholly devoid of force and irrelevant for the purpose of the decision of this case.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at length and perusing the orders of the Rent Controller as well as the learned Judge in the High Court, we are satisfied that there is no ground for intervention by this Court as the ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered for sufficient grounds and no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order.
6. For the foregoing reasons we find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.