2009 YLR 289 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUHAMMAD MOHSIN MALIK VS Mst. QAMAR JEHAN Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Ejectment of Tenant--TERM , Proof--TERM , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , S.15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art:199---Constitutional petition--Ejectment of tenant---Bond fide personal need of landlady for her children---Proof---Failure to produce children as witness---Effect---Demand of high rent---Landlady sought ejectment of tenant from shops on the ground of bona fide personal need for her children and default in payment of rent---Ejectment application was dismissed by Rent Controller but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed eviction order on the ground that landlady had proved her bona fide need---Plea raised by tenant was that landlady failed to prove her stance as she did not produce her children as witness and she only wanted to increase rent---Validity---For personal requirement, landlady's failure to examine children for whose occupation she sought ejectment of tenant, would not be fatal, if landlady's statement on oath was convincing and tenant had failed either to shake her statement in cross-examination or to disprove by evidence in rebuttal---No hard and fast rule could be laid down for quantum and quality of evidence to prove bona fide need of landlady for seeking eviction of tenant---Statement of landlady alone was sufficient to prove her personal requirement if it could satisfy a prudent mind by objective evidence that such requirement did exist---For bona fide personal requirement, landlady had to state in her application the material facts which only constituted cause of action along with those facts which prima facie showed that requirement was according to law and was made in good faith and landlady was not required to state the nature of business which she intended to carry on---Demand of higher rent by itself did not cast any doubt on the personal bona fide requirement, where factum of bona fide requirement was independently proved---Landlady had only to establish good faith and if version of landlady had not been challenged, the purpose of their examination would not improve the case---Even otherwise each and every case was to be decided on its own merits---Order of eviction passed by Lower Appellate Court was legal, proper and in accordance with law and passed on merits, therefore, the same did not require any interference and was maintained by High Court---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.