2022 CLC 1354 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL Ss.13, 13A & 14---Personal bona fide need of landlord---eviction application filed by appellant with averments that he was a lawful owner of commercial property (two shops with front-seat/platform); that respondents were tenants of previous owners; that one respondent sublet the platform of said shops without owner's permission/consent; that sub-tenants also failed to tender rent to the appellant; that appellant was unemployed and wanted to start his business in said shops; that he approached/appraised the respondents to vacate possession of said shops, followed by legal notice but with no response---eviction Application was dismissed by Rent Controller---Validity---In previous round of litigation, first eviction application was disposed of on compromise; and second application was dismissed by Rent Controller mainly on ground that shops were required for personal/bona fide use of appellant (previous owner's brother)--Appellant through oral/documentary evidence proved that he was the legal/lawful owner of shops in dispute, required for his personal/bona fide use/occupation, moreover he had no other shop in same vicinity---Rent Controller failed to appreciate the oral and unrebutted documentary evidence and reached wrong conclusion which caused miscarriage of justice---Appellant himself appeared before Rent Controller and was subjected to cross-examination---Person who was the most relevant to prove personal requirement was the landlord himself, and none else could effectively testify to that fact except himself; hence, his statement was of immense importance/significance which had gone unchallenged in cross-examination---Principle of res-judicata did not bar the subsequent application; because the first application was disposed of on compromise while the second application was withdrawn on technical grounds---Private settlement made earlier could not constitute an eternal defect in landlord or debar him forever to get the shop for his personal use---After purchasing shops, appellant served notice under S.13A of the Ordinance, 1959, but rent was not remitted to the appellant, thus respondents committed wilful default---Issue of wilful default by respondents was established---Appeal was allowed and respondents were directed to handover the vacant possession of shops in dispute along with front-seat to appellant.