ABID. vs ABDUL KARIM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's eviction order. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord had successfully established a bona fide personal requirement of the demised premises for his son to set up a business and facilitate his marriage, including the sufficiency of presently available accommodation and allegations of alternate properties. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding the bona fide personal need were based on proper and cogent reasons derived from the evidence. Consequently, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed, affirming the concurrent orders of eviction.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for eviction can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
- Does a landlord's requirement of premises to set up a business for his son's marriage constitute a valid ground for eviction?
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dismissing an appeal filed by petitioner and thereby upholding an order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises.
2. ' Learned Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that the respondent had successfully proved that he required the premises for the use of his son to set up a business so that his marriage could be arranged. Learned Judge in the High Court on re-appraisal of evidence also took the same view. According to his findings the accommodation presently available to the landlord is not sufficient to accommodate his son.
3. Learned Judge was also not impressed with the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord has another property besides the one stated by him.
4. ' N. K. Jatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the same submissions that were urged before the High Court in support of the appeal but we find that these have been rejected for proper and cogent reasons.
5. ' There is therefore no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.