2017 CLC 1624 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Haji KARIM DAD S. 17---eviction of tenant---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Objection by the tenant was that previous eviction petition was dismissed for non-prosecution--- Fresh eviction petition---Maintainability---Appellant/tenant contended that it was a financial institution (Bank) and its long standing business would be uprooted in case of eviction and that it was not a bad paymaster and landlord had failed to prove his personal requirement---Respondent/landlord contended that several opportunities to vacate the demised property had been given to the tenant since long---Landlord produced confidence inspiring evidence for personal need to establish own business before the Rent Controller---Issue was framed regarding maintainability of the suit, as the objection was raised by the tenant that prior to the present application, the landlord had already filed an application against the tenant, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller in 2010 on non-prosecution and the same was not challenged before the next higher forum, as such, the application of the landlord was hit by the principle of res judicata---Rent Controller had rightly decided the said issue that earlier application was not dismissed on merits, rather it was dismissed for non-prosecution, since the earlier application was with regard to the non-payment of monthly rent as such, the present application was for personal bona fide requirement of landlord, and a fresh cause of action had accrued to the landlord and the landlord was at liberty to file application for ejectment at any stage for its personal bona fide requirement---Landlord produced three witnesses and also recorded the statement of attorney---Statements of all the witnesses supported the contention of landlord that the property in question was required for personal bona fide use of landlord---Averments of eviction application were supported by the statement on oath of the landlord---Contention of tenant was that its long standing business would be uprooted on account of ejectment, but the fact remained that rehabilitating a landlord, the tenant must make available premises for the owner and find out an alternate accommodation---In the present case, the tenant had enjoyed tenancy rights for almost thirty years, it could not claim a lifelong tenancy rights in the said property---View of the Rent Controller, on the face of record, appeared to be well-reasoned and in consonance with the spirit and object of law---Landlord had the right to pick and choose the property for his personal bona fide need---Tenant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment---Tenant was directed to vacate the premises to the landlord within six months---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.