2003 YLR 1233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

ROHAIL VS AHMAD Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , ----S.13(3) (a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Proof---Land underneath the cinema premises only was rented by the landlords and the superstructure alongwith its fittings, fixtures, etc. was owned by the tenant---Only one of the landlords appeared before the Rent Controller and he too in very vague and general terms stated that some of the landlords required the land for the purpose of their residence and business after the construction---No specific particulars and details had been given as to who, out of the landlords, wanted to raise the construction in the nature of residential premises and such landlords were not already in possession of suitable premises for their abode or were living in some rented premises---None of the landlords who required the land for their residence had been examined to prove their bona fides---Same was the position with regard to the portion of the area which was claimed by the landlords for the purpose of non-residential building---Both the Courts below found that-the landlords required the premises bona fide---Validity---Although, the statement of the landlord on the ground of personal requirement must be given considerable weight, yet at the same time, a landlord was not absolved of his legal duty to appear before the Court and put forth the genuineness of his demand ---Co-landlords for whose requirement, the property had been claimed, had failed to appear before the Court, and the statement of one of the landlords was insufficient to prove the bona fides of their demand---Bona fides could only be spelt out from the material/ evidence brought on the record, as the person for whose personal requirements, the premises were allegedly required had not been examined and the particulars of their specific need had not been proved--General and vague statements of other witnesses that the landlords required the rented land for their personal requirement was not in line and spirit. of the law on the subject of personal need---Courts below on the issue of bona fide personal need of landlord had not considered the case on the basis of evidence and the law developed so far, therefore, such finding of fact being erroneous and against the record, and the law laid down by the superior Courts, could not be sustained-- eviction orders passed by Rent Controller and maintained by Appellate Court were set aside by the High Court in circumstances.