MAQSOOD AHMAD vs KHALID HUSSAIN KHAN and others
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had modified a Rent Controller's decision regarding the eviction of a tenant. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in determining that the respondent-landlord had established a bona fide personal need for the rented premises, specifically a shop, despite the tenant's arguments regarding the landlord's financial constraints and the inequity of the eviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the findings of the High Court, which had concluded that the respondent had sufficiently proven his requirement in good faith as a co-sharer of the property. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had properly assessed the evidence on record and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading, non-reading, or misapplication of the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. The Court granted the petitioner a three-month period to vacate the premises, stipulating that failure to comply would entitle the landlord to obtain possession through a writ of possession with police assistance.
- Can a co-sharer landlord seek eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide personal need?
- Does the failure to demonstrate misreading or non-reading of evidence by the High Court preclude interference by the Supreme Court in a rent matter?
- Is a tenant entitled to a grace period for vacating premises after an eviction order is upheld by the Supreme Court?
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-4-2001 in R.F.As. Nos.51 and 53 of 1996 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench Hyderabad, whereby the said appeals filed by the respondents were allowed with modification in the judgment of the learned Rent Controller dated 8-9-1996 that the respondent No,1 Khalid Hussain has made out a case for personal bona fide need being co-sharer alongwith others in all the shops with the respondents viz. Aurangzeb Khan and Shahid Hassan Khan hence it would be fair and equitable that he is given vacant possession of the shop adjacent to Shalimar Cloth House who be put in possession within three months from the date of judgment, hence this petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant.
2. The facts of the case are not disputed hence the same are not being narrated, considering also that the same have been stated in the impugned judgment and the petition itself.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers is opposed to law, justice and facts, considering also that the respondent in para. 4 stated that they were in short of money hence could not extend their cloth business and further it would not be fair to give away one shop to the respondent Khalid Hussain.
4. We do not find substance in the said contention. Learned Judge in Chambers has properly assessed the evidence on -record and legally and equitably came to the conclusion that the said respondent has proved his requirement in good faith. The learned counsel could not point out any misreading or non-reading or misapplication of the law consequently we find no ground for our interference. Accordingly this petition has no merit which is hereby dismissed. However, a period for three months is given to the petitioner at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to vacate the said shop ordered and in failure to do the same, the respondent/landlord would be entitled to possession through writ of possession without notice and police aid if required.
Ejectment upheld.
Cited by 3 cases
- Ahmad Nadeem Abbasi vs Chaudhry Muhammad Ishaq & others 2020 [M] C L R 76
- AHMAD NADEEM ABBASI Versus Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ISHAQ 2019 CLCN 44
- Ahmad Nadeem Abbasi vs Chaudhry Muhammad Ishaq & others 2016 IHC