Mst. MAIMUNA BAI and anothers vs NOORUDDIN and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which upheld an eviction order against the petitioners (tenants) based on the landlords' claim of personal bona fide use of the demised premises. The landlords, Nooruddin and his sister, sought ejectment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, citing default, subletting, and personal requirement. While the Rent Controller ruled against the landlords on the grounds of default and subletting, eviction was granted solely on the ground of personal bona fide use, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The petitioners contend that the lower courts misread the evidence, noting that the landlords possess several vacant flats in the same building, which should suffice for their needs, and that the landlords failed to specify which family member required the premises. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the evidence regarding the personal bona fide requirement was correctly assessed by the courts below, specifically in light of the availability of other vacant accommodation owned by the landlords.
- Does the availability of other vacant premises owned by a landlord negate a claim of personal bona fide requirement for eviction?
- Is it necessary for a landlord to specify the exact family member for whom the premises are required in an eviction petition?
- Can the Supreme Court re-examine evidence regarding personal bona fide use when leave to appeal is granted?
- Section 15, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---By this petition leave is sought against judgment dated 31-5-1992 of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby F.RA. No,667 of 1988 filed by petitioners herein is dismissed upholding order of eviction on the ground of requirement of demised premises for personal bona fide use.
2. Nooruddin and his sister Hasina Bai as owners applied for ejectment under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the grounds of default, subletting and requirement of premises for personal bona fide use of owners and children of Nooruddin. In the result Rent Case No, 669 of 1986 was registered in which written statement was filed denying allegations. After assessm ent of evidence issues with regard to default and subletting were found against the owners but ejectment was granted on the ground of requirement of premises for bona fide personal use. Appeal is dismissed by the High Court as stated above.
3. Mr. Mujeeb Pirzada learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners/tenants submitted before us that evidence on the issue of personal requirement has been misread by the two Courts below. In the building in dispute there are 8 flats out of which only 3 flats are tenatend while the remaining flats are in possession of the owners, which is more than sufficient accommodation to satisfy requirement of premises for personal use of the owners as claimed by them. He has referred us to the evidence of Nooruddin in which this fact is admitted that only three flats are tenanted. It is also submitted that the owners have not pin-pointed as to for whom demised accommodation is wanted and that person is not examined.
4. We grant leave to examine evidence on the issue of requirement of premises for personal bona fide use in the light of contentions mentioned above. Paper book is to be prepared on the present