2015 YLR 308 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Full text

MUSHTAQ AHMAD VS TAHIR ADAM 1980 SCMR 593, 1994 SCMR 355, 1996 SCMR 1178, 1997 SCMR 1062, 2001 SCMR 550, 2004 SCMR 1607, 2004 SCMR 964, 2008 CLC 87, 2011 YLR 182, PLD 1976 Kar. 832, PLD 2007 SC 31, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , Eviction of tenant--TERM , S. 17---eviction of tenant---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Striking off defence of tenants---Validity---Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Hindrance and delay was caused by the tenants in quick disposal of the case which was essential requirement of law---Tenants failed to produce evidence in spite of availing more than 18/19 adjournments and Rent Controller had no other option except to pass the order of striking off defence of tenants---Preference had to be given to the order passed by the court---Rent Controller had adopted legal procedure and had provided full/sufficient opportunity to the tenants but they failed to produce evidence---No illegality, irregularity or infirmity had been pointed out in the order for striking off evidence of tenants---No right of cross-examination was given to the landlord with regard to the copy of statement produced by the tenants and same could not be considered as piece of evidence---Landlord was not bound to disclose the nature of business to be started in the demised premises in order to seek ejectment of tenant from a commercial premises on the ground of his personal and bona fide need---Proof of having experience in the trade or business by the landlord was not necessary to prove personal need for such premises---Landlord, in the present case, was not in possession of any other property in the area suitable for his need and requirement---Sole testimony of landlord was sufficient to establish his personal and bona fide requirement---Statement of landlord and his witness on oath were consistent with the averments made in the eviction petition---Nothing was on record to contradict such statements---Tenants did not step in the witness box to controvert the testimony of landlord---Tenants had remedy under S.17(6) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 if landlord did not use the suit premises for his personal need---Rent Controller was justified in accepting the evidence of landlord and ordering eviction of tenants---Tenants were directed to vacate the premises within six months---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.