2012 SCMR 1498 SUPREME-COURT

Full text

PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS VS NAVEED MERCHANT 1973 SCMR 185, 1986 SCMR 650, 1986 SCMR 946, 1996 SCMR 1178, 1997 SCMR 1062, 1998 SCMR 2119, 2001 SCMR 1197, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--13 , S. 13---eviction of tenant (respondent)---Personal bona fide need of the landlord (appellant)---Rent controller had ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord---First Appellate Court found itself in agreement with the findings of the Rent Controller---High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below by placing reliance upon a plea (written statement) of the tenant which stated that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court, other tenements which had fallen vacant were re-let by the landlord---Contentions of the landlord were that the High Court had exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in an arbitrary manner by not affording an opportunity to the landlord to explain its position in respect of such a belated plea on behalf of the tenants, which was neither raised in their written objections nor in their evidence before the Rent Controller and First Appellate Court, and it was only raised for the first time before the High Court---Validity---Tenants did not dispute the fact that the plea upon which the High Court had set aside the concurrent findings of the two courts below was neither raised by the tenants or their predecessor-in-interest in their pleadings or in their affidavit in evidence nor even before the First Appellate Court---Said plea was raised for the first time before the High Court, which swiftly decided in favour of the tenant without affording any opportunity to the landlord to rebut/clarify their position in that regard---Present proceedings had consumed more than twenty years and during this period the landlord, in order to demonstrate their bona fide, were not required to remain in the state of status quo---Landlord had the choice and prerogative to occupy any tenement under their own use without any dictation in such regard from the tenants, particularly, in the circumstances, when reasonable explanation for claiming eviction of tenants in preference to other tenements was already offered in the pleadings as well as in the evidence which was not even disputed by the tenants---Alternate contention of the tenants that the case might be remanded to the High Court or to the lower courts for affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence, would have been worth consideration in case litigation between the parties had not already consumed more than two decades---Claim of the landlord, when examined on the basis of their word to word pleadings of the rent application and the affidavit in evidence of their witness left no doubt on the subject of their choice and preference which had already come on record and remained un-shattered and un-rebutted from the side of the tenants---Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and that of the two courts below in favour of the landlord were restored---Tenants were allowed two months' time to vacate and hand over actual physical possession of the rented premises to the landlord.