GHULAM RASOOL SHAH vs KAMAL KHAN
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside the eviction order passed against the respondent-tenant by the Rent Controller. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent from a room forming part of his residential house, which was being used for commercial purposes, on the ground of bona fide personal use as a Baithak. The core legal question was whether a landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant for personal residential requirement from premises that, although of a residential character by nature and structure, were let out and used for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that if premises essentially constitute a part of a residential house by their very nature and structure, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of personal residential requirement, notwithstanding their commercial use by the tenant. The key principle laid down is that the physical nature and structure of the premises as residential governs the landlord's right to seek eviction for personal use, regardless of the tenant's commercial usage.
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant from premises of a residential character for personal use when the tenant has been using the same for commercial purposes?
- Does the nature and structure of the premises govern the landlord's right to seek eviction on the ground of personal requirement?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.--This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, dated 12-6-1984 whereby an order of eviction passed against the respondent-tenant by the Rent Controller was set aside and respondent's appeal was allowed.
2. Appellant had sought respondent's eviction from a room of his residential house which was being used by respondent for business purpose on the ground that appellant requires it bona fide for personal use as Baithak of the house. Learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties accepted appellant's plea, but on appeal a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court held that the room having let out for commercial use could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement by the landlord for his residential use.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in view of the rule laid down by this Court in several cases, and reference was made in this connection to Civil Appeal No. Q-14 of 1984 (Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hannan), decided on 6-4-1985 that if, by its very nature and structure, the premises in question are of residential character, the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant on ground of personal requirement for residence; notwithstanding the fact, that the same might have been used by the tenant for commercial purpose.
4. The above view has support in various cases of this Court for example, Amjad Ali Shah v. Iqbal Ahmed Farooqi PLD 1985 SC 242 and Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hannan 1985 SCMR 2082.
5. Since it has been held as finding of the fact that the premises in dispute essentially constitute a part of appellant's residential house, he was entitled to seek respondent's eviction on the ground that he bona fide requires the same for the personal use which fact also stands proved on the record. For these reasons, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the result that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent is upheld. In the circumstances however the parties are left to bear their own costs.
Cited by 4 cases
- ISHRAT VAR KHAN vs ABDUL REHMAN 2000 C.L.R. 909
- ISHRAT YAR KHAN vs ABDUL REHMAN 2000 PLD Supreme Court 783
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD SABIR Versus SHAUKAT MEHMOOD 1992 MLD 1962
- LAL DIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others 1991 CLC 1559