SIRAJUDDIN SHAIKH vs SHAKEEL AHMED

ORDER

1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.----The eviction in this case has been ordered from a residential premises on the ground of personal requirement.

2. ' In the leave petition before us, Mr. Ali Akbar has argued that bar of res judicata applies because an earlier eviction, as for the benefit of the same individual and against the same tenant, had been declined by the Controller per order, dated 31-7-1993 in Rent Case No.11 of 1991. Another contention is that the landlord has been guilty of suppression of material facts in consequence of which he had disentitled himself to obtain relief. As to the first question, the earlier rent case was filed by the landlord's co-owner and brother Shafiq Ahmed but the same was dismissed on the ground that Shakeel Ahmed, the beneficiary of the proceedings, was not examined in evidence. This hardly satsifies the ingredients of the principle of res judicata. The relevant observation in the earlier rent case is as below:-- "Apart from the above legal defect the perusal of evidence of the applicant nowhere shows the accommodation presently in occupation of the applicant. He has also not given the number of his own family members in his affidavit. Applicant as discussed above requires the premises in question for his younger brother Shakeel Ahmed. But surprisingly the person for whose requirement the demise premises is required has not been examined. There is no plausible explanation on record for non-examination of Shakeel Ahmed in this case."

3. Regarding the plea of suppression, it has been maintained that the landlord owns several other properties which were not disclosed and which came to be revealed during the course of his cross-examination. The omission to mention the details and particulars of the other properties owned by the landlord does not appear either to be deliberate or mala fide. It is an admitted fact that none of such properties was in the occupation of the landlord nor had the possession of any such property been parted by the landlord in proximity of the time when the rent case was instituted. On such basis the decision of this Court in Latif Ahmad v. Farrukh Sultana (1996 SCM R 1233), where the landlady had earlier obtained possession of another shop and parted with the same before the institution of the ejectment application and had failed to disclose or explain whether the shop possession whereof was parted was or was not sufficient to meet the requirement, is clearly distinguishable.

4. Having gone through the evidence, we find that the landlord, who was stated to be co-owner of the property and who, in the circumstances, had to file a case in his own name, occupies only one room in the present accommodation and has also since been married. Personal requirement, in good faith, seems thus, to have been established.

5. ' While there is no reason to interfere with the High Court order we would still grant one year's time to the tenant who appears to be an old occupant. This is subject, however, to his continuing to deposit the rents as hithertobefore. In the event of any default in payment or failure to vacate within the time allowed, the petitioner would be liable to be evicted without notice and with police aid, if necessary.