Malik NISAR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs ABDUL RAUF
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute concerning the ejectment of a tenant from a shop in Peshawar City. The landlord sought eviction on two grounds: unauthorized subletting and the bona fide personal requirement of the premises. While the Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, finding the landlord's personal need established. The High Court subsequently dismissed the tenant's second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the lower courts' findings regarding the landlord's personal requirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the landlord is not required to detail all supporting evidence or factors regarding personal need within the initial ejectment application itself; such details are appropriately established during the evidentiary phase. The Court affirmed that the landlord's circumstances—specifically the growth of his children and the inability to continue his shoe-making business from his residence—sufficiently substantiated his bona fide personal need. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Is a landlord required to detail all evidence supporting a claim of personal requirement within the initial ejectment application?
- Can an appellate court order eviction based on personal requirement if the Rent Controller dismissed the application?
- Does the growth of a landlord's family and the inability to conduct business from a residence constitute sufficient grounds for a bona fide personal need for a commercial property?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-Petitioner No. 1, Malik Nisar Mohammad, is a tenant of the respondent, Abdul Rauf (who is also his brother) in Shop No. 2553/AR, situate in Bazar Dalgaran, Peshawar City. The respondent applied to the Rent Controller for the petitioners' ejectment on two counts :--
(a) that the tenant bad sublet the property to petitioner No. 2, Abdul Hamid, without the consent of the landlord ; and
(b) that the shop was needed in good faith by the landlord for his personal use.
2. The application was, however, dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 1-12-69.
3. Thereupon, the respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, by his order dated the 28th of March 19,0, on the ground that the shop was needed by the landlord in good faith for his personal use. The learned Additional District Judge does not appear to have recorded any finding on the question of subletting.
4. Aggrieved by the appellate order of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners filed a second appeal in the High Court which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 8th of March 1972.
5. Not much reasoning or argument is needed to see that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have no substance whatsoever. In the application for ejectment the respondent was not required to spell out all the evidence or factors in support of his personal requirement, and these things had to be stated only during the course of evidence. The Courts below have rightly observed that the circumstances of the respondent, namely, that his children were growing up and he could no longer carry on the business of shoe-making at his house, clearly established his Bona fide personal need. No justification is made out for our interference in the matter.
6. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
- Prof. (Retd.) MASOODUL HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL 1998 PLD Lahore 177
- Messrs INTER AGENCIES LTD. vs HABIB BANK LTD. 1989 MLD 1912
- Messrs MACK INDUSTRIES vs Haji ABDUL KARIM and 9 others 1986 MLD 1595
- Mst. MARIAM vs Haji AHMAD 1984 CLC 2865
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM alias SEEMA vs SARDAR KHAN THROUGH HIS LEGAL 1984 PLD Lahore 179
- SUBAH SADIQ ETC. vs Mistry TAJ DIN ETC.S 1979 SCMR 297
- Sh. ABDUL ALI vs ZAHEER ALI JAURA 1982 CLC 153