ABDUL RAZZAIC and others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others
This matter originated as four eviction applications filed by a landlord against tenants occupying four separate shops, citing grounds of default and bona fide personal use. While the allegation of default was rejected by the lower courts, the eviction applications were granted based on the landlord's established requirement for personal use, specifically to conduct a business involving iron bars and cement. The High Court affirmed these concurrent findings of fact, noting that the individual shops were too small to accommodate the business requirements, necessitating the use of multiple units for storage and office space. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the findings and determined that there was no misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court upheld the eviction orders, dismissing the appeals. The Court affirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord, supported by evidence, are generally not disturbed in appellate proceedings. By consent of the parties, the Court granted the appellants a period of six months to vacate the premises.
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal requirement be disturbed in appellate proceedings?
- Is a landlord entitled to multiple premises for a single business if the individual units are insufficient in size?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---These appeals by leave of the Court are directed against the judgment dated 6-12-1992 of the High Court.
2. The respondent-landlord brought four eviction applications against the appellants for their eviction from four shops in respective possession of each appellant. The grounds taken in the eviction applications were default and bona fide personal use of the landlord. The ground of default was not established. However, the applications were granted on the ground of personal use. The appellants challenged the order of eviction before the High Court in four appeals which were disposed of by a common judgment. Their appeals were dismissed and four months' time was granted to the appellants for handing over the vacant possession of the shops.
3. At the leave granting stage, one of the tenants who had two shops had agreed to surrender one shop to the respondent and the shop has since been in possession of the landlord. The landlord required the shops for running the business of iron bars and cement. According to the respondent, three shops are required for storing the material and the fourth shop would be used as an Office.
The two Courts have accepted the requirement of the landlord. There are concurrent findings of fad. The area of each shop is too small to run the business in one shop.
4. There is no misreading of evidence. These appeals are dismissed. The appellants request for some time for handing over the vacant possession of the shops. The learned counsel for the respondent has agreed to grant six months' time. The appellants should hand over the vacant possession of the shops in question within six months. No order as to costs.
Cited by 6 cases
- Dr. HASSAN FATIMA Versus PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY 2026 SCMR 1303
- MOHAMMAD ZIAFAT Versus TARIQ NAWAZ KHAN TAREEN 2026 SCMR 1132
- MUHAMMAD UMAR Versus The VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (EAST) 2016 CLCN 148
- Messrs ALKARAM TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. and others vs EAST WEST INSURANCE 2001 SCMR 688
- Messrs AL-KARAM TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. And Other vs EAST WEST INSURANCE K.L.R. 2001 S.C. 128
- Messrs AL-KARAM TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. And Other vs EAST WEST INSURANCE K.L.R. 2001 S.C. 128