2015 CLC 1786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

Mrs. MARYAM A. MUNIF VS Mrs. GHAZAL BUKHARI 1984 CLC 2213, 1985 SCMR 1996, 1986 CLC 1628, 1988 SCMR 819, 1990 SCMR 1070, 1990 SCMR 544, 1991 SCMR 1307, 1992 SCMR 1799, 1994 SCMR 355, 1996 SCMR 1178, 1997 CLC 905, 1997 MLD 1, 1999 SCMR 1353, 2000 CLC 1252, 2000 CLC 2005, 2000 CLC 274, 2001 SCMR 981, 2003 SCMR 1398, 2006 SCMR 145, 2009 CLC 215, 2009 CLC 279, 2010 CLC 308, 2010 CLC 447, 2010 SCMR 1925, 2010 SCMR 837, 2011 CLC 538, 2011 SCMR 487, 2012 SCMR 1498, 2013 CLC 562, 2013 CLC 622, PLD 2004 SC 921, PLD 2012 Lah. 234, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , Ejectment of tenant--Term , S. 17---Ejectment of tenant---Personal need of landlord---Good faith---Landlady moved ejectment application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of her personal bona fide need but the same was dismissed---Validity---Trial Court had come to the right conclusion that the landlady had failed to prove her claim of personal bona fide need in good faith which was the basic ingredient---Landlord had the prerogative to select amongst various properties held by him/her where he/she would like to start his/her business and same was not the job of the tenant to suggest as to which place was suitable for him/her---Prime responsibility of the landlord was to approach the court with clean hands and to prove from the averments his/her good faith but in the present case from pleading of the landlord, it had been observed that divergent and contradictory statements had been made by the landlady which put dent in her case---If landlady was in need of the premises for personal use, she would not have given contradictory statements about her financial condition i.e. she was facing financial problems and hardship and that she had to earn livelihood for herself and her family---Landlady had admitted in her cross-examination that she was earning substantial amount as rent from her other properties and that her husband and sons were having their own properties and independent sources of income---No case of interference was made out in the impugned judgment---Appeal was dismissed.