Syed HAMID MAHMOOD GILANI vs ABDUL REHMAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal need for the rented premises to justify the tenant's eviction. The Rent Controller and the High Court had both dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner's son had previously filed an ejectment application for the same premises, which was dismissed in default, and that the petitioner was already operating a clinic at the time of that earlier application. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove a bona fide personal need, particularly given the concealment of the previous litigation and the fact that the petitioner was already established in business elsewhere. The Court affirmed that where a landlord fails to disclose prior failed attempts to evict for the same purpose and fails to demonstrate genuine necessity, the ejectment application is rightly dismissed. The petition was consequently dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Does the failure of a landlord to disclose a previous ejectment application filed by a family member regarding the same premises undermine the claim of bona fide personal need?
- Can an ejectment application be sustained when the landlord is already operating a business elsewhere at the time of filing?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 22-2-1992.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner brought an application for the ejectment of the respondent on the ground of personal bona fide need. The application was contested. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application. the learned Judge in Chambers maintained the order of the Rent Controller. It may be stated that first ejectment application was filed by son of the petitioner on the ground that he required the premises in question for his own personal use. The application for ejectment was dismissed in default, but the rent of the property was increased from Rs,400 to Rs,600 per month. After the dismissal of the first application, the petitioner moved the ejectment application after about 3 months on the same ground. It may also be mentioned that in the present application the rent of the shop in question is mentioned Rs,600, therefore, it can definitely be said that the earlier application moved by the son was with the consent of the petitioner. In the second application the petitioner did not mention the institution of the first application. The petitioner was already running a clinic when his son had moved the application for ejectment of the respondent; as such the petitioner has failed to establish his bona fide need of the shop.
' This petition has no substance. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused.