2015 YLR 2683 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS GHULAM MUSTAFA 1987 SCMR 2051, 1995 SCMR 146, 1996 SCMR 1233, 2000 SCMR 542, 2001 SCMR 338, Constitutional petition--TERM , Ejectment of tenant--Term , Proof--TERM , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Proof---Suppression of facts by the landlord---Effect---Landlord had concealed material facts from the court while agitating personal bona fide requirement of demised premises---Landlord was bound to plead his need in good faith while seeking personal bona fide need by furnishing the relevant facts truthfully---Landlord had failed to discharge such burden honestly, fairly and candidly which was fatal to the bona fide need in good faith---Landlord had prerogative to choose a particular premises for his bona fide personal occupation and use the same in case he had more than one premises---Landlord, however, was bound to give plausible and satisfactory explanation for his insistence to occupy a particular premises in preference to occupy any other premises available for occupation and use for such prerogative---Nothing was on record as to why the other shops which were in possession of landlords were not sufficient and would not meet the demands of business sought to be established by the son of landlord---Landlord had not disclosed the factum of other shops having become vacant as well as already carrying of business by his son which had negated his good faith and bona fides---Statements of landlords and their witnesses were not inconsistence with the averments of the main eviction petition---Landlord had not disclosed in the memo of ejectment petition and their affidavits in evidence that they were in possession of other shops---Suppression of such facts had adversely affected the credibility of landlords---Landlords had failed to establish their personal need in good faith---Mis-statements and concealment of necessary facts had established the bad faith on the part of landlords which was completely based on mala fide and ulterior motives---Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the available material and had committed illegality and material irregularities---Impugned order was based on non-reading and mis-reading of evidence---Admitted facts did not require any proof---No case for personal requirement had been made out---Rent Controller had rightly and correctly declined to pass order for ejectment of tenant---Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.