Hakim MUHAMMAD FAZAL HAQUE vs ABDUL HAMEED
The petitioner, a landlord, sought the ejectment of the respondent, a tenant, citing bona fide personal need for his son and default in rent payment. The Rent Controller initially granted the ejectment application based on the landlord's bona fide need. However, the High Court reversed this decision on appeal, reasoning that the landlord failed to deny the tenant's allegation in the written statement that another shop owned by the landlord had been rented out to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner challenged this reversal in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's finding was based on an incorrect reading of the evidence and that the record did not conclusively support the claim that the other shop was rented out. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the record, noting that it had granted leave in a connected petition for the same purpose, and ordered that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty for parties to file additional documents.
- Can a High Court reverse a Rent Controller's finding on bona fide need based on an unverified allegation in a written statement?
- Does the failure of a landlord to deny an allegation regarding the renting of another property during litigation automatically negate a claim of bona fide personal need?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is tenant of Shop No. 2 Afzal Maret, Masan Road, Karachi. The petitioner filed an ejectment application against the respondent on the ground of bona fide need of his son Ahsanul Haque and for default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller granted the ejectment application against the respondent on the ground of personal' need of the son of petitioner. First Rent Appeal was filed in the High Court and a learned Judge, per impugned order, dated 21-8-1984, reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller about the bona fide need of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent has suggested in his written statement that Shop No. 6 was rented out to one Tariq during the pendency of the case and the said statement was not denied by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this finding is not based on the correct reading of the evidence; that there is nothing on the record to conclusively hold that Shop No. 6 was let out to Tariq during the pendency of the case and warrant the upsetting of the definite finding of the Rent Controller about the bona fide need of the shop for his son Ahsanul Haque.
3. We have today granted leave in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. K/360 of 1984 for re- examination of the record. We grant leave in this case to for the same purpose. Security rupees one thousand only.
Appeal to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if so desired.