2018 MLD 498 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

Mrs. HIFSA NAWAZ VS MUHAMMAD HAROON ZAMIR KHAN 1984 CLC 755, 1990 MLD 1009, 2006 SCMR 152, 2012 SCMR 1498, 2014 MLD 693, 2015 YLR 2683, PLD 2015 SC 33, S.15---Ejectment petition---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Landlord had withdrawn eviction petition instituted on the ground of default in monthly rent---Change of cause of action---Scope---Landlady contended that she needed demised property for personal bona fide need in the wake of forthcoming marriage of his son---Tenant contended that landlady had falsely changed the ground of default of payment to personal bona fide need as current accommodation with her was sufficient---Validity---Record revealed that in the ejectment application, the landlady had asserted that marriage of her son (who was also a witness in the case) had been fixed as such she needed the demised premises for use of her son and she affirmed that she had purchased the premises in question as her son's marital house and this fact was conveyed to the tenant at the time of rent agreement---Evidence of attorney of the landlady and her other witnesses including her son had reiterated the same and also that the marriage had been put on hold for vacation of the demised premises as the girl's family had demanded a separate house for their daughter as a precondition for the marriage---All the witnesses of the appellant had unequivocally supported personal need of landlady for her son whom she intended to settle there after the marriage and which was also the demand of her would-be daughter-in-law's family---Such assertions of the witnesses had neither been shattered materially in their cross-examination nor rebutted adequately by the tenant in his reply to the ejectment application---High Court observed that it was not essentially the case of the landlady that her current accommodation was insufficient for her family's residence as her entire case was articulated of her ejectment application where she had asserted that her son's marriage had been fixed, therefore, she needed the demised premises for his use; and that she had purchased the suit property as her son's marital house, where he was to settle after the marriage and such fact was conveyed to the tenant at the time of rent agreement---Landlady, in circumstances, had been able to establish that she required the demised premises for his son---Impugned order was set aside and appeal was allowed---Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over its possession to the landlady within 60 days from the date of present judgment for which period he however, shall pay the agreed rent to the landlady---Order accordingly.