ALI JAN vs I.ATIF ULLAH SHAH And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The respondents had sought eviction of the petitioner from a shop on the grounds of personal need—specifically, to accommodate the respondent's son, Dr. Naseeb Ullah, to run a medical clinic—and for the reconstruction of the premises. The petitioner challenged the eviction, arguing that the respondent's need was not bona fide, citing the lack of a medical license for the proposed clinic and the potential for accommodating another son in the premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement. The Court affirmed that obtaining a medical license is not a legal prerequisite for initiating the reconstruction of a building. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the potential accommodation of an additional family member in the same premises does not negate the landlord's established bona fide requirement for the property.
- Is the possession of a medical license a prerequisite for a landlord to seek eviction for the purpose of constructing a clinic?
- Does the potential accommodation of an additional family member in the same premises negate a landlord's established bona fide requirement?
- Can a landlord seek eviction on the combined grounds of personal use and reconstruction of the premises?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 29-11-1990. '
2. The facts, in brief, are that an eviction application was filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the grounds of requirement of the shop for the use of his son Dr. Naseeb Ullah for running a clinic and for the re--construction of the said property for the said purpose. The application was contested. The Rent Controller on 11-1-1990 passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal before the High Court was dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the eviction application, there was no mention of the need of his other son who was to run a medical store. He further submitted that without obtaining the licence, the medical store could not be started. This contention was also raised before the High Court and appropriately dealt with by it. The bona fide requirement of the son of the respondent has been established by the two Courts after acceptance the evidence of bona fide requirement. The obtaining of a licence is not a pre--requisite for raising the construction. The bona ride requirement of a landlord for the re-construction of an old building and settling his son to run a clinic has been established. If another son is accommodated in the same premises, it would not negative the contention of the respondents about the bona fide requirement. The application of the landlord was allowed on both the grounds, namely, for re-- construction of the old building and accommodating his son Dr. Naseeb Ullah. The two Courts have assessed the evidence properly.
4. There is no legal informity in the impugned order. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst. Maryam and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary 2023 PLJ Karachi 37
- Mushtaque and others vs Federal Government of Pakistan and others 2023 PLJ Karachi 61