2017 MLD 1432 ISLAMABAD

Full text

MANSOOR ALI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST), ISLAMABAD Eviction petition--Term , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--17 , S. 17---eviction petition---Personal bona fide need of heirs of original landlord---Scope---Grounds of expiry of tenancy agreement and personal bona fide need---Tenant claimed tenancy agreement with deceased original owner---Relationship between tenant and legal heirs of original owner---Scope---Tenant/petitioner contended that he had tenancy agreement with lady owner of the demised property and her legal heirs continued receiving rent from him despite expiry of tenancy agreement---Tenant/petitioner denied personal bona fide need claiming that, earlier, premises was vacated in the name of personal bona fide need but later the same was again rented out---Landlord/respondents contended that after the demise of original owner of the property, they were her legal heirs who wanted eviction of tenant for personal bona fide need---Validity---Record showed that the eviction petition was instituted by original owner of the rented premises in the year 2013---Original owner passed away, during the pendency of the eviction petition, therefore, her legal heirs were impleaded---Relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties had not been denied---Admittedly, the petitioner's entry into the rented premises was on the basis of lease agreement executed in the year 2004---Said lease agreement was entered into between the tenant/petitioner and husband of the original owner---Son of the original owner did not deny that earlier the landlord had rented premises vacated on the ground of personal bona fide need, but it had also been deposed that after the rented premises was vacated by the earlier tenant, the same was used by landlord for the business which continued for a year and a half after which the rented premises were again rented out---Held, owners of the rented premises could institute eviction petition against tenant/ petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide need---Landlord's had unfettered choice as to which of his properties he might put to his personal use---Rent Controller did not have the authority to determine the property which the landlord should put to his own personal use---Landlord was not required to mention in the eviction petition or in his evidence, the nature of business he wanted to carry out at the rented premises---Choice was with the landlord to select any of the tenements for his personal need and for such purpose the tenant had no locus standi to give advice to the landlord to use alternate accommodation---Landlord had a complete option to choose from one of the several tenements occupied by tenants for his personal requirements and the discretion was not assailable, except in the rarest cases of bad faith---Son of deceased original owner, in the present case, had deposed that the rented premises was required to be used as a clinic by his wife, who was a doctor which stance could not be shaken in the cross-examination---No inconsistency existed between the averments in the eviction petition and evidence---Sole statement of landlord regarding the personal bona fide need for the rented premises was sufficient for the eviction of tenant---Tenant/petitioner, in his affidavit-in-evidence had deposed that he was not tenant of the son of original owner and that tenant/petitioner was regularly paying rent---On account of demise of original owner, both husband and son of deceased had become co-owners of the rented premises, therefore, they both were competent, jointly or severelly to institute or pursue the eviction proceedings against the tenant---Under S. 17(5) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001, the Rent Controller had to satisfy himself about the bona fides of landlord's claim regarding his requirement for his own occupation of the rented premises in good faith---Two courts below were concurrently satisfied as to the eviction petitioners' bona fides regarding the claim---No convincing material was available to doubt the satisfaction of two courts below as to the eviction petitioners' bona fides---If the rented premises was not occupied by the landlord or by any of their family members, S. 17(6) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001 gave ample protection to the tenant---Without going into the question whether the expiry of a lease was a ground under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 to seek the eviction of a tenant, High Court observed that two courts below had correctly allowed the eviction petition on the ground of landlord's bona fide need for the rented premises---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.