ABDUL RAZZAQUE vs BOR MUHAMMAD
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had upheld an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Quetta. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Rent Controller correctly determined that the landlord had a bona fide requirement for the demised premises for his son, Noor Muhammad, thereby justifying the tenant's eviction. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the petitioner's arguments, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's bona fide need. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. However, exercising its discretion, the Court granted the petitioner a period of four months to vacate the premises, contingent upon the petitioner's undertaking to hand over possession to the respondent without the necessity of formal execution proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement, when supported by evidence, are generally not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.
- Can a tenant be evicted if the landlord proves a bona fide requirement for the premises for their son?
- Is the Supreme Court likely to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal requirement in a rent matter?
- Can the Supreme Court grant a grace period for vacating premises upon an undertaking by the petitioner?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order of his eviction from the demised premises passed by the Rent Controller, Quetta. Learned Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that respondent/landlord bona fide required the demised premises for his son Noor Muhammad.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the points raised by him in support of the petition and gone through the record of the case. We find no justification in law or on fact of this case for interference. The petition is therefore dismissed.
3. However, on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the presence of the petitioner that he will vacate and hand over the premises to respondent/landlord without recourse to execution proceedings, petitioner is allowed four months' time from today in order to seek alternate accommodation.