NASIR PERVAIZ vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And 2 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an eviction order. The petitioner-landlord sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of personal requirement and default in rent payment. The appellate court and the High Court rejected the eviction application, primarily reasoning that the landlord's failure to prove the default ground undermined the bona fides of his personal requirement claim. Furthermore, the courts below found that the landlord's previous possession of a rented shop, which he vacated in favor of his father or brother, indicated a lack of bona fide intent. The core legal question is whether a landlord's possession of a rented shop, or the possession of such a shop by a family member, legally bars the landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from their own property on the grounds of personal requirement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in law by treating these factors as a bar to establishing bona fide personal requirement.
- Does a landlord's failure to prove the ground of default in rent payment necessarily invalidate the bona fides of a claim for personal requirement?
- Does a landlord's possession of a rented shop, or the possession of such a shop by a family member, legally preclude the landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from their own property on the ground of personal requirement?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 6-7-1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of order of eviction of the respondent No. 3 tenant passed by a learned Rent Controller, was dismissed.
2. The respondent was ordered to be ejected on the ground of personal requirement of the petitioner-landlord. The tenant's appeal, however, was accepted and the petitioner's application for eviction, was dismissed. The order of the appellate Court having been upheld by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, the petitioner --landlord has now sought leave to appeal.
3. The case has ultimately been decided against the petitioner on two points: One, that he had also asserted ground of default of payment of rent by the tenant and because he, the landlord, had failed in substantiating that ground, therefore, this failure will react on his bona fides regarding the other ground namely, personal requirement. Secondly, the petitioner had a rented shop with him.
4. He gave its possession to his father or brother some time before seeking eviction from the shop in dispute which he had purchased a couple of months before seeking eviction of the respondent.
5. A learned Judge in the High Court while dealing with the second point observed as follows:-- "The petitioner's witness, Muhammad Bashir, P.W. 2, bore out that the petitioner's father had another shop. In such circumstances the view formed by the learned Additional District Judge touching lack of bona fide regarding requirement of the shop cannot be said to be based on any misreading of evidence."
6. Learned counsel has contended that both the appellate forum and the High Court fell in legal error in considering that possession) by the father of a landlord of a rented shop disentitles him from seeking eviction of a tenant from his own shop on ground of personal requirement because that would show lack of bona fides on his part. He has argued that even if the petitioner himself had been in possession of a rented shop it could not have been a legal bar to his seeking) eviction of the tenant from his own shop.
7. This, and the other points raised in this petition, require examination. We accordingly grant leave to appeal.
8. Security Rs.2,500.