2013 CLC 1541 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

VICTORIA FURNITURE MART VS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Bona fide personal need of landlord--Term , Constitutional petition--TERM , Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act 1994--7 , Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act 1994--8 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , S. 15----Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act (XII of 1994) Ss.7 & 8---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional Petition---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Scope---Rented premises having status of "protected heritage"---Effect---Ejectment of tenant on ground of bona fide personal need for the reconstruction of the premises was allowed concurrently---Contention of the tenants (petitioners) was that the landlord did not have a personal bona fide need, as landlord planned to sell the premises; and that, the premises had been declared as "protected heritage" under Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 therefore, the requirement for reconstruction had become infructuous---Validity---Evidence of landlord's witness in relation to bona fide personal need could not be shaken during cross examination and tenants could not establish that the statement of the landlord made on oath was not consistent with the averments made in the ejectment petition---Landlord did not need to renew sanction for reconstruction of the premises every year during pendency of proceedings, as renewal was only a formality, and expiry of period of sanction for reconstruction would not frustrate the cause of action nor render same infructuous---Intention or efforts of landlord to sell out premises would not disentitle the landlord to subsequently seek eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need---Contention that the premises had been declared "protected heritage under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 had no force since that was a matter which had no concern with the tenants and such matter was between the landlord and the concerned authorities---Tenant could not escape eviction on such ground if otherwise he was liable to be evicted under law---Concurrent findings of courts below could not be interfered with--- Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.