Syed NISAR HAIDER vs Mst. RAZIA SULTANA
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant challenging the High Court's dismissal of his first rent appeal, which had upheld an eviction order granted by a Rent Controller based on the landlady's personal need. The core legal question was whether a landlady's requirement for the premises to accommodate her married daughter, who would assist her due to her old age and ill health, constitutes a bona fide personal need under the relevant rent laws. The Supreme Court held that the landlady's stated need was legitimate and bona fide. The Court reasoned that the law does not prohibit a landlord from seeking eviction to accommodate a family member whose presence is mutually beneficial, particularly when the landlord has been transparent about the purpose of the requirement. Consequently, the Court affirmed the eviction order, finding no merit in the tenant's argument that the daughter should have been accommodated elsewhere. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's bona fide personal need, including the need to house a family member for caregiving purposes, is a valid ground for eviction.
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal need to accommodate a family member for caregiving purposes?
- Is a landlord's requirement to house a daughter for assistance due to old age and illness considered a bona fide need under rent law?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant against the dismissal by the High Court, of his first rent appeal which had arisen out of an order of eviction passed by a learned Rent Controller on the ground of personal need of the respondent/landlady.
2. ' The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner needs to be noticed here that while deciding the matter the High Court on respodnent/ landlady's appeal also rendered a judgment against the petitioner on the question of default in payment of rent.
3. ' According to learned counsel the respondent/landlady is occupying the ground floor of the house while the first floor is with the petitioner. She claimed that first floor was also required by her on account of her illness and old age so that her married daughter should occupy the same and be available to be of service to her mother, the respondent herein, in case of need.
4. ' Learned counsel tried to show that such a need is not visualised by the law nor would it be treated as bona fide because according to him respondent could accommodate her daughter on the ground floor so that she should be more near to her as compared to be on the first floor to assist her. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that the respondent/landlady has sought the eviction of the petitioner on account of bona fide need related to her old age and ill health.
5. Otherwise too she could seek the eviction of the petitioner for the use of her daughter but she has not concealed the truth. The need it appears is mutual. The law does not prohibit it. In this view of the matter we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. ' The question of personal need having been decided against the petitioner, there is no need to further examine the question of default. This petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mehfooz Yar Khan vs Mrs. Margrate Karimullah 2004 C.L.R. 2039
- ABDUL HAMEED Versus NEK MUHAMMAD 1994 SCMR 2255