Pakistan Case LawABDUL RASHID Versus BABOO (Deceased) Through L.Rs.
This matter arises from a petition impugning a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which dismissed the petitioner's first regular appeal and upheld the eviction order passed against him. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had filed an eviction application in 1991 against the petitioner from a shop on the ground of personal bona fide need for his son. The Rent Controller scrutinized the evidence and allowed the eviction, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings regarding the bona fide personal need of the landlord for eviction were sustainable and whether the eviction application was mala fide for enhancing rent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower forums were correct, supported by the admissions of the petitioner during cross-examination, and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal requirement based on proper appreciation of evidence and admissions of parties will not be interfered with by the apex court.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding personal bona fide need are open to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does an admission by a tenant in cross-examination regarding the lack of business premises for the landlord's son clinch the issue of bona fide requirement?
- Whether an eviction application can be deemed mala fide for enhancement of rent without supporting evidence?
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J. - Petitioner, Abdur Rashid has impugned judgment dated 29.11.2000, of a learned Judge in Chamber, High Court of Sindh whereby his FRA No. 140/1994 was dismissed.
2.The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely Baboo had filed eviction application in year 1991 against the petitioner for his eviction from shop Np, 3 constructed on Plot No. 129, Blocks 7 and 8, C.P. Bear Society, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as "the Premises", on the ground of personal need. Respondents are legal heirs of deceased Baboo; respondent No. 1 is his wife; respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are his sons and respondents Nos. 5 to 8 daughters. It is case of respondents that the premises is required for respondent No. 2.
3.The case of the petitioner is that prior to this case viz. No. 334/1991, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had tiled rent cases i.e. 449/1986 and 162/1989, which were either dismissed or withdrawn. Main plea of the petitioner is that the respondents want to enhance rent and that the eviction application is mala fide.
4.Learned Rent Controller in detail scrutinized the evidence brought on record and reached conclusion that the premises were required by the respondents in good faith. Accordingly, he allowed the eviction application.
5.Above order was challenged before High Court, but without .Any success. Learned High Court agreed with the findings of Rent. Controller and dismissed the appeal with a direction to the petitioner to had over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents within a month.
6.It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that eviction application was not filed by the respondents in good faith, but it was mala fide with the sole object to enhance the rent without any legal justification. It has also been argued that the respondents re-let all the shops to others, which were vacated by other tenants during pendency of these proceedings. Also it is urged that it is a case of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence.
7.Above contentions are devoid of any force. It was urged before Rent Controller that the respondents are washermen by profession and they have no experience of a general provision store, which the respondent No. 2 M. Raja intends to run in the premises. The plea was turned down by learned Rent Controller, and rightly so, as the main point was whether or not the respondent No. 2 requires the premises for his bona fide use. The admissions of the petitioner in civil servant are enough to clinch the issue in favour of the respondents. He on 8.2.1994 in his cross-examination before Rent Controller stated as follows:-
"It is correct that since 1986 no notice was given to me by applicant for enhancement in rent, as there is litigation between us since then. It is correct that since January, 1992 no shop was ' vacated and no new tenancy was created by the applicant. It is correct that I have received a notice from applicant for possession of premises. It is correct that there is no shop in possession of Raja for doing his business, Vol. Says that he is doing his business in the courtyard of his house. It is correct that there is no shop on the first or second floor of building. The son of Raja namely Faisal is aged about 14 years. The son of Raja namely Khalid is aged 12 .Years. It is incorrect that ' premises is required by Raja and his sons."
8.In view of above the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and High Court are perfectly correct and not open to any exception. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. The petitioner, however, is granted four months' time for handing over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents. In case above order is not complied with, the writ of possession shall be issued against petitioner without notice to him with police aid, if necessary.
Judges on this bench
- Nazim Hussain Siddiqui983 judgments
- Abdul Hameed Dogar1,529 judgments