Law: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Section: XI,17

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 70,89

(a) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963)-------S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Monthly rent, rate of---Divergent stances of the parties---Rent Controller rejected eviction of the tenants sought by the ejectment petitioners / landlords---Rate of monthly rent was claimed by the appellants/landlords as Rs.6000/-, which was controverted by the respondents/tenants, while submitting their written reply wherein they asserted that in fact the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month and they had already paid all the due rent---Rent Controller decided issue relating to the rate of rent and held that the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month---Examining the evidence produced by both the sides to said effect revealed no material whatsoever to differ with the findings of the Rent Controller on rate of monthly rent---Appeal, filed by the landlords , was disposed of.(b) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963 )-------S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Scope---Rent Controller dismissed ejectment petition filed by the landlords for eviction of tenant from rented premises (house)---Validity---Record revealed that one of the appellants / landlords, while himself deposing as witness, during his cross examination, admitted that previously the appellants filed various ejectment petitions against their tenants on (the same ground) of personal bona fide need and obtained possession in terms of the eviction order---Though it is prerogative of the landlord to choose any of his property which in his estimation would meet his requirements but at the same time, ground of personal bona fide need cannot be made basis for eviction of the tenant when it is established on the record that the landlord has already got vacated other properties from his tenant(s) on the same ground in the near past---It was also established on the record that appellants / landlords had shifted their residence just before filing of ejectment petition and they did not plead that the accommodation where they were residing was insufficient for their need---Thus, the appellants failed to prove that the rented promises (house) was required for their personal bono-fide…