Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,23

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 21(3)

🔹 Summary of the Case The petitioner (tenant) challenged the eviction order passed by the appellate Court, which directed him to vacate the rented shop. 📌 Key Facts: The landlord filed an ejectment application claiming personal bona fide need for his unemployed sons. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the case. On appeal, the appellate Court allowed eviction after reconsidering evidence. The tenant argued: Landlord had other properties Requirement was not genuine The landlord argued: He has the right to choose property for personal use Tenant failed to prove mala fide intention 🧠Court’s Findings: Landlord is the best judge of his personal need. Even if other properties exist, it does not negate bona fide requirement. The tenant failed to provide strong evidence to disprove landlord’s claim. Under constitutional jurisdiction (Article 199): Court cannot re-evaluate evidence like an appellate court. Interference only if there is illegality or misreading of evidence. 👉 Final Result: Petition dismissed, eviction upheld. ⚖️ Sections / Laws Used Article 199 – Constitution of Pakistan (constitutional jurisdiction) Article 23 – Right to property Section 21(3) – Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (additional evidence) 📚 Key Case Laws: 2025 SCMR 1691 – Landlord’s choice is final 2012 SCMR 1498 – Bona fide need accepted if unchallenged 2002 SCMR 241, 2000 SCMR 1613 – Landlord property rights 2010 SCMR 1925 – Limits of Article 199 jurisdiction 🏷️ Two 2-word Descriptions Tenant Eviction Bona Fide O R D E R Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner/tenant has challenged the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned VII-Additional District Judge, Karachi (South), whereby F.R.A. No.168/2018 was allowed and the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the learned XI-Rent Controller, Karachi (South) in Rent Case No.109/2017 was set aside with directions to the petitioner/tenant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the appellant within 30 days from the date of the order. The facts, as emerging from the record, are that Syed Hanif Shah…