Dr. ABDUL RAHMAN GORA vs Mst. ASYA SULTANA
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an eviction order issued by a Rent Controller against the petitioner. The core legal dispute concerned whether the respondent-landlady had sufficiently established a bona fide personal requirement for the demised premises to justify the petitioner's eviction. The High Court had previously determined that the landlady's family, consisting of six members, required additional accommodation, as the current available space was insufficient for their needs. Upon reviewing the record and hearing counsel, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual error in the High Court's findings. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the landlady had satisfactorily proven her bona fide personal need for the premises. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a landlord establishes a genuine and bona fide personal requirement for a property, and the existing accommodation is demonstrably insufficient for the family's needs, an eviction order is legally justified and sustainable on appeal.
- Can an eviction order be upheld if the landlord proves a bona fide personal need for the premises?
- Is the insufficiency of current accommodation a valid ground for proving a landlord's bona fide personal requirement?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court dated 2-6-1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal and in result upholding the order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that respondent-landlady had satisfactorily proved that she required the premises for her bona fide personal use.
2. The High Court noticed that it is an admitted position that "there are six members of the family (of the landlady)" and in the view of the High Court "they at least require one room each". The accommodation available with the landlady was held to be insufficient and on the facts proved on record it was also held that "the need (of the landlady) is bona fide".
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record we find that no exception in law or on facts can be legitimately taken against the view that has prevailed in the High Court.
4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.