2016 MLD 1796 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUBARAK ALI VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN 1984 CLC 755, 1992 CLC 723, 1996 MLD 71, 1998 CLC 349, 2000 MLD 442, 2010 SCMR 1925, Eviction petition--Term , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--14 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , Ss. 14 & 15----Intent and Scope of Ss.14 & 15, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---eviction petition---'Personal bona fide need' of landlord---Scope---Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on ground of 'personal bona fide need', and the appellate court maintained said findings---Landlord had earlier filed an eviction petition on the same ground, which had been dismissed on the ground that he was not available before the court to examine himself; however, the issue as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been decided in affirmative in said petition, against which the tenant had preferred appeal, which was still pending---Tenant contended that during pendency of said appeal filed against the order passed on the earlier eviction petition, fresh petition was not competent, and that after re-employment of the landlord, the ground of retirement was not available to him, and that after death of the landlord, his legal heirs had no right to sue him on the same ground---Validity---No bar existed to the effect that a landlord, after failing in an ejectement petition filed on any of the grounds enumerated under S. 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, could not file a fresh case under S. 14 of the Ordinance for ejectment of the tenant---Intent and scope of said two provisions of the Ordinance were quite distinct and independent of each other, and referred to different causes of action and could even be simultaneously resorted to by landlord---Term 'personal use' in S. 14 of the Ordinance had broader meaning, which transcended the connotation of the person of landlord, and the same included his immediate family---Law did not require a landlord, that, in order to prove his personal bona fide need, he had to sit idle and stay away from any activity to generate funds for himself and his family till decision of his case---Evidence of the landlord's attorney had remained un-shattered and his assertion that the landlord was living in a rented house had been un-rebutted---Courts below, having exhaustively dealt with the factual aspects of the case, had decided the issue affirmatively as to existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.