ABDUL SHAKOOR vs Mst — 2024 YLR 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL SHAKOOR VS Mst. ZAHIDA HAROON Ss. 14 & 15---Eviction of tenant---Scope--- Personal bona fide need---Petitioners were legal heirs of the deceased who was original-tenant of the respondent (original-landlord)---Original-landlord had admittedly transferred the rights of the demised property to his son as being his share in property, however, said son passed away whose widow surfaced claiming to be the landlady/respondent--- Respondent/lady claimed personal requirement as she intended to open a shop of cosmetics with the assistance of her father-in-law by removing the intervening walls of the demised property (shops)---Plea of the petitioners/tenants was that it was not customary within the interior of Sindh that a lady could operate a shop of cosmetics---Parties had a round of litigation and the case was remanded---Validity---Record revealed that earlier, the case was remanded only as to whether or not, rent was paid to the respondent/lady after service of notice and/or service of application under S. 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 ('the Ordinance 1979')---Admittedly, petitioners claimed respondent/father-in-law to be their landlord and the rent was never paid to respondent/lady---Evidence as required under S. 14 was not challenged by the petitioners---Even if it was considered to be case of personal requirement under S. 15 of the Ordinance, 1979, respondent/lady in her affidavit-in-evidence had stated that she intended to open a shop of cosmetics by removing the intervening walls of the shops, with the assistance of her father-in-law/respondent---Plea of the petitioners was not tenable as no customary law was recognized which could restrict a women/lady from conducting a lawful business such as present one i.e. running a shop of cosmetics---Assistance of father-in-law of the respondent/lady was also not denied, who (father-in-law) might be old and feeble but moral and valuable assistance was always there---Although after remand the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court had not given any findings on personal need either with or without bona fide requirement but since the evidences was otherwise available, therefore, High Court decided both the issues in favour of respondent that in either case, even if it was an application under S. 15, the personal bona fide need had been proved though such bona fide was not required under S.14 of the Ordinance---Default had taken place as no rent was admittedly tendered after notice of the application under S. 14 of the Ordinance 1979---In evidence of father-in-law he had stated that the proprietary rights of his property had been devolved amongst all his sons and daughters and demised property had come in the pool of husband of respondent/lady, who had expired---Thus, on both the counts, claim of the petitioners was liable to be dismissed; however, the rights as available to the tenant to challenge conduct of business by respondent/lady under S. 15-A of the Ordinance 1979 would remain protected---Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed, in circumstances.

ABDUL SHAKOOR vs Mst — 2024 YLR 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR