2016 YLR 2347 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

JAVAID IQBAL VS Khawaja ABDUL JALIL 1993 MLD 410, Concurrent findings--Term , Constitutional petition--TERM , Eviction petition--Term , Proof--TERM , Requirement--Term , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--18 , Ss. 15 & 18--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---eviction petition---Change of ownership---Notice to tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord--- Proof--- Concurrent findings--- Jurisdiction of High Court---Proof of ownership of landlord---Requirement---Provision as to property---Fundamental right of landlord as to his property--- Enforcement of--- Landlord having purchased rented premises issued notice to tenant under S. 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which was replied by tenant---Rent Controller allowed the application---Contention raised by landlord was that he was already running his business at the shop adjacent to rented premises and wanted the rented premises for expansion of said business---Tenant took plea that landlord/new owner of the property had not provided him with ownership documents---Validity---Basic requirement of S. 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was transmission of intimation by new owner through notice to tenant regarding change of ownership---Tenant had categorically admitted receipt of such notice which the tenant had replied and demanded ownership documents---Tenant could not compel new landlord to supply ownership documents after purchasing rented premises as per scheme of section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Sole testimony of landlord was sufficient to establish his personal bon fide need for rented premises, when his statement on oath was quite consistent with averments made in ejectment application and nothing could be brought on record to contradict the same---Rent Controller had to evaluate genuineness and honest aspect of statement of landlord and if the same was not tainted with malice, he should not have hesitated to allow the application---Contention raised by tenant that landlord intended to sell rented premises would not defeat personal bona fide need while testimony and veracity of landlord was not shaken during cross-examination---Owner and landlord of rented premises could not be deprived of his right and interest to use his property in any manner suited to his requirements and any unreasonable restrictions on right to choose any of his property for his need in good faith would offend his constitutional rights guaranteed under Art. 23 of Constitution---High Court had no jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution to substitute its own findings for findings of tribunals below---Landlord had succeeded to prove his personal bona fide requirement for rented premises in good faith---Tenant failed to point out any illegality or infirmity or mis-appreciation of evidence of parties while passing of concurrent findings---While scrutinizing concurrent findings passed by both courts below, High Court would not treat Constitutional petition as second appeal---Concurrent findings of courts below did not call for any interference---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.