ABDUL QAYYUM vs Lt.Col. (Retd.) JAMILUR REHMAN QURESHI
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed the landlord's appeal and granted eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under Section 14(4)(b)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The tenant challenged the order, contending that the requirement was not genuine because the landlord had another vacant shop and an advertisement seeking tenants had been published. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reversing the Rent Controller's dismissal when the landlord explained the availability of the additional space. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the landlord's complete deposition and pleadings demonstrated a genuine need to combine both shops to open a departmental store after retirement. The Court found sufficient, satisfactory evidence supporting the bona fide requirement and dismissed the appeal, allowing the tenant six months to vacate.
- Can a landlord claim bona fide personal requirement for a rented shop if an adjacent shop owned by him is also lying vacant?
- Whether the publication of an advertisement to rent out a vacant shop by a third party automatically disproves a landlord's bona fide requirement?
- Section 14(4)(b)(i), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 17- 11-1991 of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, whereby F.RA. No, 182/90 is allowed and in the result eviction is granted on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant and respondent herein are tenant and landlord respectively (to be referred hereafter as such) of premises in question in respect of which landlord filed Rent Case No, 68/1984 under section 14(4)(b)(i) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, for eviction on the ground of requirement in good faith for his own use. Landlord averred that on his retirement from active service of Army, which was due, he proposed to start business and therefore, required shop in question in good faith for his own use.
Tenant in the written statement disputed assertion of landlord on the ground that requirement was not bona fide as one shop was available with landlord lying vacant. In evidence landlord and tenant examined themselves. Initially ejectment was granted but in appeal case was remanded for fresh decision and vide order dated 20-2-1990 ejectment application was dismissed by Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment. Landlord took appeal to the High Court, where he has succeeded in terms stated above.
3. In this Court, leave is granted to examine contention raised on behalf of tenant that High Court should not have set aside order of dismissal of ejectment application passed by Rent Controller for the reason that requirement was not bona fide in view of admissions in his deposition made by landlord to the effect that one shop was lying vacant with him and advertisement was published in the newspaper to have that shop rented out. In this connection we have perused application for ejectment, written statement and evidence of the parties. No doubt admissions are there as pointed out in leave granting order but there are explanations as well, hence whole deposition of landlord is to be read in the light of pleadings of the parties. In the ejectment application landlord stated that he wanted shop in question to start a small business of his own after retirement. There is nothing wrong with brief description of need in the ejectment application. After objection was raised in the written statement about availability of one vacant shop, landlord explained in his affidavit of evidence in para. 9 (at page 36 of paper book) that he had not rented out adjacent shop lying vacant with him for the reason that he proposed to use both shops to run his business.
In the cross-examination landlord reiterated this fact and when confronted with factum of publication of advertisement, he admitted that such advertisement was published not by him but inadvertently by his cousin without his permission and it was not acted upon as the shop was still with him not rented out. Landlord also stated that he planned to open departmental store, which would require more space than one shop.
4. We are satisfied that requirement of landlord is bona fide and in support thereof sufficient evidence of satisfactory nature is produced by him. We are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of High Court, which is upheld and appeal against it, which has no merits, is hereby dismissed. With the consent of Mr. Iqbal Kazi, six months time is allowed to the tenant to vacate.