KHALIL AHMAD KERSHI vs NOOR MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which had upheld an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The landlord initially sought eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but subsequently amended the application to include grounds under Section 15 of the same Ordinance, specifically citing default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application but, following a remand order by the High Court, ultimately ordered eviction. The petitioner challenged the propriety of the initial remand order and questioned the bona fide nature of the landlord's personal requirement claim. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not challenge the remand order in the appeal against the final decision, as the remand order itself had not been contested at the relevant time. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the determination of the landlord's bona fide personal requirement is a question of fact conclusively decided by the lower forums, providing no grounds for interference. The petition was dismissed.
- Can a party challenge a remand order in an appeal against the final order passed after the remand if the remand order itself was not challenged earlier?
- Is the determination of a landlord's bona fide personal requirement a question of fact that cannot be reopened in appeal?
- Section 14, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 15, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--The respondent who is the landlord of the disputed premises consisting of a house initially applied under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the eviction of the petitioner who is the tenant in the said premises. It seems subsequently the landlord amended the ejectment application and included a prayer for eviction of the petitioner under section 15 of the said Ordinance. The grounds urged in the amended application were default in the payment of rent by the petitioner and bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. By his order, dated 28th September, 1981, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord with liberty to him to file a separate application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
2. Being aggrieved the respondent /landlord challenged the order in appeal before the High Court of Sind which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision under section 15 of the said Ordinance. On remand the learned Rent Controller heard the case afresh and allowed the ejectment application directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the disputed premises to the respondent vide order, dated 15th January, 1985. The appeal of the petitioner before the Sind High Court having been dismissed by order, dated 15th October, 1985, he has approached this Court for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has contended that the remand order passed by the High Court on the earlier occasion was improper and illegal. He has further contended that in view of the changing stand taken by the respondent in applying under section 14 initially and then having resort to section 15 of the Ordinance, clearly, his claim for personal use was not bona fide.
4. We have perused the judgment and orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court rightly refused to consider the first contention on the ground that the remand order not having been challenged by the petitioner, it was not open to him to assail the same in the appeal filed against the final order passed after the remand As regards the second argument we sire satisfied that the High Court has considered the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the plea of the respondent of personal requirement was bona fide. This is a question of fact conclusively determined by the forums below and there is no ground to reopen the same. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE vs SHAKEEL AHMED and 2 others 2007 CLC 717
- 1993 PLC 287 1993 PLC 287
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT) LIMITED vs CHAIRMAN, SINDH K.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 68