Malik MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Messrs GENERAL IRON STORES And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a landlord's constitutional petition seeking the eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller had initially allowed the eviction, but the appellate court and the High Court reversed this decision, citing the landlord's lack of bona fides. The lower courts based their findings on three factors: the landlord's operation of a different business in rented premises, the fact that his son and son-in-law occupied other properties owned by him, and his failure to disclose these circumstances in his initial application or examination-in-chief. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether these specific circumstances legally bar a landlord from seeking eviction for personal use. The Court further sought to clarify whether a landlord is legally obligated to proactively disclose all such facts regarding other properties or business activities in their initial eviction application or during their examination-in-chief to establish bona fide personal requirement.
- Does a landlord's ownership of other properties occupied by family members constitute a legal bar to seeking eviction on the grounds of personal requirement?
- Does the fact that a landlord operates a business in other rented premises bar them from seeking eviction of a tenant for personal use?
- Is a landlord legally required to disclose all facts regarding other properties or business activities in their initial eviction application or examination-in-chief to prove bona fide personal need?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 7-11--1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner-landlord's Constitutional petition arising out of an appellate order refusing to eject the respondent tenant on ground of bona fide personal requirement of the petitioner, was dismissed. Petitioners application had earlier been allowed by learned Rent Controller.
2. A learned single Judge in the High Court has taken into consideration three circumstances when affirming the appellate judgment regarding lack of bona fides and good faith on the part of the petitioner: One, that he was running a business (other than the one he intended to start in the shop in dispute) in another rented premises; two, that his son and son-in-law were doing business in other property owned by him; and three, that he had failed to disclose the aforementioned two circumstances in the application for ejectment or during the examination-in-chief. The relevant information in that regard was elicited during his cross-examination.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended none of the circumstances taken by the learned appellate Court and the High Court could in law tie considered as bar to the petitioner seeking eviction of the tenant on ground of bona fide personal requirement.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case for examining the following questions: One,whether the property owned by the landlord and which is with either his son-in-law or son or other tenant would constitute a bar for his seeking eviction of the tenant on ground of personal requirement; Two,whether the fact that the landlord was doing business, other than one he wanted to start in the premises in dispute, in another rented building would constitute a bar for seeking eviction of the tenant on ground of personal need; and, Three, whether it is incumbent on the landlord to disclose in the application or in examination-in- chief all facts and circumstances with regard to his properties occupied by other persons or his having occupied other rented premises for doing some business, before asking for the eviction of his tenant on ground of personal requirement. Order accordingly. Security Rs.2,500.
5. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.