2019 PLD 18 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

WILLAYAT ALI VS NAHEED HUSSAIN Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 2(g)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23, 24 & 199---eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need for a family member of the landlord---Scope---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant---Petitioner/landlord contended that both the Courts below had wrongly declined his claim of personal bona fide need, merely on the ground that he failed to mention particular name(s) of any person from his family for whom demised premises were needed---Validity---Held, though very limited scope was permitted in constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in such matter but it was responsibility of the High Court to protect property rights envisaged by Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution---Record revealed that while Rent Controller had acknowledged that during cross-examination the petitioner submitted that the premises was needed for the marriage of his son, however, Rent Controller treated the same as a variance between his (landlord's) need and need of another family member---None of the two Courts below was competent to pierce through the family needs, seeking pin pointation of the person for whom the property was needed as long as need was coming from within the family---Sections 2(g) & 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 collectively stipulated that Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 treated the landlord and his spouse or his family members as 'one unit' and became satisfied to handover the possession to any of the said persons---To breakdown the solidarity and integrity of the family unit of the landlord and to put in the witness box landlord's wife or his children or other family members for whom the landlord needed the demised property was not required---If such would have been the intention of the Legislature, it would have been so specifically spelt out therein, therefore, it was up to the landlord to satisfy the Rent Controller that the demised property was needed by him, his wife or children, making no exposure for them to come up in the witness box and be examined or cross-examined individually---Said veil of family-integration was not allowed to be ruptured and the tenant could not object to the internal arrangement worked out by the family amongst themselves in such regard---Conduct of respondent disclaiming his relationship with landlord itself disentitled the respondent from any equitable relief---High Court set aside judgments passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.