Mirza MUSTAFA BEG vs Mst. KHATOON HADI
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which upheld the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a commercial shop ordered by the Rent Controller. The respondent-landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the building by demolishing the common intervening wall between two adjoining rented shops to convert them into a single unit. The Rent Controller and the High Court both ordered eviction, rejecting the tenant's defense of prior consent. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether there was any legal basis or evidence on record to support the conclusion that the demolition of the wall materially impaired the utility or value of the building. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the record lacked evidence to substantiate the finding of impairment, and granted interim stay against eviction subject to regular rent deposits.
- Whether the demolition of a common intervening wall between two rented shops constitutes material impairment of the value and utility of the building under rent laws?
- Is a finding of material impairment of a building's value and utility required to be supported by evidence on the record?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when the lower courts draw conclusions regarding property damage without supporting evidence?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J --This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 2-9-1982 dismissing petitioner's appeal and thereby upholding an order of his eviction from the demised premises passed by the Rent Controller on 18-7.1982, Facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent-landlord filed an application for petitioner's eviction from Shop No. 6, Hadi Market, Nazimabad, Karachi on the ground that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building and cause damage to it, in that, he had demolished the common intervening wall between Shops Nos. 6 and 100 both rented to him.
2. Petitioner, inter alia, pleaded that at the the the to shops were leased by respondent, he had agreed that the common wall between the shops may be removed and both the shops may be converted into one shop.
3. The Rent Controller after recording evidence produced by the parties rejected petitioner's plea and held that he had unauthorisedly removed the wall between the to shops and thereby materially impaired the value and utility of the building, and on this view of the case, he directed petitioner's eviction from Shop No. 6.
4. Petitioner's appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by Sind High Court, and he now seeks leave to appeal.
5. Mr. Muzaffar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner after referring to the record submitted that it is an admitted position that the common wall between the to shops was demolished, but there is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that by the demolition of the common wall and converting the to shops into a larger one, the value or the utility of the building was thereby impaired. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent used to issue a joint receipt of rent for the to shops treating it as one larger shop.
6. The question that deserve consideration is whether there was any legal basis on the record for the conclusion being drawn that petitioner had materially impaired the utility or the value of the building so as to entail his eviction from the shop. Leave is granted. Security Rs.2,000.
7. Appeal to be made ready for hearing on the present record, It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
8. Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till the appeal is decided, provided he continues to deposit rent in Court regularly.