Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1584 1994 SLD 1584 = 1994 PLD 206

First Rent Appeal No.487 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1164 of 1993 , decided on (sic) January, 1993.
Wajihuddin Ahmed, J

MUHAMMAD IQBAL---Appellant

VERSUS

ABDUL KARIM -Respondent

Law:

Section:

The only ground on which eviction was sought in the instant proceedings was the ground of personal need of the respondent-landlord, who had maintained that, suffering from heart ailment and finding it difficult to climb stairs because of his then recent heart surgery it was inconvenient from him to live in a second floor premises, owned by his son. In evidence the landlord examined himself, his son and one Vicent Pinto, Administrative Assistant at the OMI (Pvt.) Limited (hospital), the last witness proving the signatures on the documents produced to show the heart condition and open heart surgery undergone by the. respondent-landlord. On his part, the appellant examined himself alone. In such manner, the case of personal requirement having been established the learned Controller ordered the appellant's eviction. '   Before me, Mr. Mustafa Lakhani has pointed out that the respondent landlord did not conclusively prove that he was in need of the ground floor premises because for one thing, no medical evidence was examined and, for another, no certificate was produced even suggesting that the landlord was advised to occupy a ground floor accommodation. On the contrary, according to Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, the landlord has been shown to be pursuing rent cases, instituted by his wife, which cases proceeded in Court rooms, which themselves were situated on a second storey. In support of his contentions, Mr. Mustafa Lakhani has placed reliance on Abdul Ghaffar v. Abdur Rasool 1986 CLC 869 and Azra Kazi v. Sirajuddin, 1990 CLC 399, the first of which lays down that a requirement to live on a ground floor premises occupied by a tenant would be proved where the landlady establishes the fact of her ailment and medical advice, suggestive of a necessity to move into a ground floor tenement, whereas the second precedent disallows a projected personal requirement to move into a ground floor tenant-hold, which was expressly let out upon a stipulation that subsequent to its letting out the landlord would be entitled to construct upon the first floor in the same building and to himself move into it. On these facts, it was found in such case of Azra Kazi that the nature…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register