Syed AMIR SAEED vs MUSHTAQ AHMED and 2 others
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner landlord to assail the concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Karachi Central, whereby his ejectment application against the respondent for personal bona fide use was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in failing to appreciate the evidence regarding the landlord's personal need and availability of alternative premises. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the two lower courts had thoroughly discussed the evidence and their judgments suffered from no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional defect. The Court laid down the principle that where a landlord has multiple vacant shops in the same building and fails to explain why those existing vacant premises are insufficient for his requirement or why he specifically needs the disputed premises, concurrent findings of fact denying ejectment based on personal bona fide use will not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by rent courts regarding personal bona fide use can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a landlord required to explain why currently vacant shops in his occupation are insufficient before seeking ejectment of a tenant for personal use?
- Whether the choice of a landlord to select premises for his own occupation overrides the requirement to prove suitability when alternative vacant shops are available in the same building?
ORDER
1. ' The petitioner through this petition has assailed the judgments passed by IIIrd Rent Controller Karachi Central in Rent Application No,218 of 1997 and by the District Judge, Karachi Central in First Rent Appeal No,325 of 2001.
2. ' The petitioner moved an application for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of his personal bona fide use. The Rent application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order filed an appeal before the District Judge, Karachi Central which was also dismissed on 13-9-2001.
3. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two Courts below have not appreciated the evidence adduced by the landlord/petitioner. The fact that the landlord has got some other shops in his name is not the material fact to be considered. He states that the superior Courts have held that it is the choice of the landlord to get the premises for his own occupation, which is suitable to him. The reliance has been placed upon the case laws of; M/s. F.K. Irani & Co. v.
4. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178, Jahangir Rustom Karalia v. State Bank of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1296, Aftab Ahmed Saeed v. Qamaruddin 1992 MLD 1601 (Karachi), M/s. Saleem Brothers v. Ferozuddin Ahmed 1992 ALD 181 (Karachi), Mrs. Cluing Ying Hsiung v. Mst. Seema Saeed 1993 CLC 505 (Karachi), Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062, Qaumi Foundation v. Asad Anees Ansari 1997 CLC 33 (Lahore), Mst. Zubeda v. Muhammad Nadir 1999 MLD 3011 (Karachi), Messers Dosman Brothers v.
5. Muhammad Aslam and 3 others 1999 CLC 2012 (Karachi), S. Muhammad Saddiq & Co. v. Dawate Hadiya Akbar Ali Hassan Ali Trust Rawalpindiwala Building 1999 CLC 1102 (Karachi) and Muhammad Aziz v. Mst. Azmat Begum PLD 2000 Karachi 41.
6. A perusal of the record shows that the evidence is well discussed by the two Courts below. The judgments are neither illegal nor perverse. No jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel.
7. ' Admittedly four shops of appellants were lying vacant. He has not stated in his evidence that the shops at present in his occupation alongwith the aforesaid four shops were not sufficient to meet his requirement. The said shops are in same building. He did not explain as to why he specially wanted to occupy the shops involved in present litigation. The order passed by the Appellate Court is based on sound reasoning and is well-speaking. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The impugned judgments need no interference. The Constitutional petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.
Cited by 3 cases
- WILLAYAT ALI vs NAHEED HUSSAIN and others 2019 PLD Sindh 18
- M,/s. Abdul Ghani & Brothers vs Ghulam Nabi and others 2004 C.L.R. 1989
- Messrs ABDUL GHANI & BROTHERS vs GHULAM NABI and others 2005 YLR 319