SHAMSUL ISLAM KHAN vs PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against judgment, dated 14-5-1983 of the Baluchistan High Court; whereby on appeal the order of eviction of the respondent, was set aside.

2. The facts noted for grant of leave to appeal are that the appellant filed eviction application against respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent and also that he bona fide required the demised premises for his personal use. The Rent Controller allowed the application on both these counts and directed respondent's ejectment but on appeal Baluchistan High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller on the grounds that the appellant failed to specify the exact need for which he required the premises; that there was evidence to show that the appellant sought the increase of rent from the tenant; and lastly that the established default was condonable in the exercise of discretion.

3. Leave was granted to examine the correctness of the view taken by the High Court on both the grounds of eviction.

4. We have heard both the learned counsel at some length. The desire of landlord to seek the maximum income from his property by itself does not furnish negation of bona fide. In this case it was ignored by the High Court that the landlord had both the options available. Either to seek more income by increase of rent and let the tenant stay or if that does not materialise as it happened, to evict the tenant so as to have the disputed premises for his own hotel which is adjacent to it. There was nothing illegal or improper about it. Moreover during the hearing the appellant's intention was put to test by offer of manifold increase in rent which was not accepted by him.

5. About the failure to specify the need it is observed that the eviction application was not properly read in the High Court. It is specified therein that the need was to extend the hotel facilities by including this property therein. There was no legal obligation to state more than that in the circumstances of this case. The High Court judgment on this point suffers from misreading and assumption of wrong principles. It accordingly cannot be maintained. That being so, there is no need to examine the second point about default.

6. In the light of the foregoing discussion this appeal is allowed and the High Court judgment is set aside regarding point of personal requirement only, with the result that the Rent Controller's order of eviction of the respondent on personal bona fide requirement of the appellant, is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Before closing the judgment it needs to be mentioned that before the hearing started learned counsel for the respondent sought adjournment to collect material for showing that the appellant having sold the suit property, it has already been rented out to another party by new owner. The appellant vehemently denied it. Accordingly adjournment was declined with observation that remedy by way of review and application for action for wrong statement could be made if genuine need arises.