2009 YLR 1083 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MEHMOOD LAKHANI VS Syeda ZUBAIDA KHATOON 1984 CLC 2769, 1986 CLC 2917, 1988 CLC 811, 1989 CLC 1113, 1989 SCMR 1366, 1990 SCMR 1070, 1994 CLC 286, 2000 CLC 274, 2000 CLC 376, 2002 SCMR 789, 2004 CLC 189, 2005 CLC 3, 2008 SCMR 398, PLD 2008 Kar. 361, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , Ejectment of Tenant--TERM , S.17---Ejectment of tenant---Bona fide personal need of landlady---Default in payment of monthly rent---Deposit of rent in court---Scope---Expiry of tenancy and accepting of rent---Effect---Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenant on the ground that he had committed default in payment of monthly rent and shop in question was required by landladies for their personal use---Plea raised by tenant was that he had been depositing monthly rent in court and landladies had failed to prove their bona fide personal need of premises---Validity---Ignorance of deposit of rent on the part of landladies was considered mala fide on the part of tenant to deprive and force landladies to give in to his demands and not press for ejectment and also to save his money in case proceedings before Rent Controller were initiated and decided against tenant---By depositing rent in wrong forum would not absolve tenant of committing default in payment of rent for premises which was wilful---One landlady was widow of the owner and the remaining two were daughters who had no other source of income to support themselves and also considering that tenancy had expired long time back and was being continued as a statutory tenancy only because rent was being accepted, it should not be considered that landladies were willing party to such tenancy---Was not mandatory for landladies to disclose nature of business yet they had been able to prove bona fide requirement and need for personal use of demised premises---Was prerogative of landladies to enjoy fruits of their property and to use commercial premises to set up their business if they so intended---Tenant could not be permitted to extend tenancy to become life time tenant to utter financial loss of landladies---Tenant had become cause of constant nuisance and mental torture for landladies and they had proved their personal need of premises---Order passed by Rent Controller was maintained by High Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.