2019 YLR 1301 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

Mst. MEHRUNISA VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM PARACHA S. 17---eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Scope---Amount deposited as Pagri by the tenant---Effect---Petitioner/lady tenant contended that respondent was not co-owner of the property where the rented premises (flat ) was situated which fact was upheld by the Supreme Court in an earlier dispute between the parties---Validity---Petitioner although had relied upon the order passed by the Supreme Court which was passed leave to appeal, however, she did not make pointation to the subsequent order passed while hearing civil appeal wherein Supreme Court had observed in clear terms that respondent was also a co-owner of the rented premises---After nine months of passing of said order of the Supreme Court, respondent moved ejectment application so the plea taken by the tenant had no force that at the time of filing of the ejectment application the respondent was not holding status and legal character of co-owner---Petitioner in her written statement had herself admitted that she had been depositing monthly rent in the name of previous (deceased) owner and all the heirs including respondent---Petitioner, thus, by her own conduct had clearly admitted the respondent to be one of the co-owners/landlords of the property wherein the flat (rented premises) was situated---Sole testimony of the landlord was sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need---Statement of the landlord on oath, in the present case, was consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application---Landlord had the prerogative to select any of his properties for his need and the tenant had no right to raise any such objection and even the Rent Controller could not make any suggestion in that regard---If any premises was specifically meant for residential purpose, but the tenant had used such residential premises for commercial use, it would not change the status and character of the said premises from residential to commercial one---Petitioner had not produced any tangible material in order to prove the factum of payment of pagri amount and secondly, if it was presumed that pagri amount was paid by the petitioner in respect of the rented premises, even then it would not debar the respondent to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of his personal bona fide need---No jurisdictional error or any perversity was found in the impugned orders---Constitutional jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction was meant to foster justice and to remedy the wrong but could not be invoked in routine course as an additional remedy to hamper the findings of fact correctly recorded by the two forums below---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.