| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 278 1992 SLD 278 = 1992 MLD 1318 |
First Rent Appeal No.240 of 1987, decided on 17th August, 1989.
Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J
Harz MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑‑Appellant
VERSUS
Mst. SAIRA BANG‑‑‑Respondent
Law:
Section:
This appeal under section ' 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against the order dated 18‑1‑1987, passed by Mr. Muhammad Saghir Rana, 1Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (West) Karachi, by which he directed the ejectment of appellant from commercial premises situated at Wilayatabad, Karachi. The appellant is the tenant of respondent in respect of a shop situated at Wilayatabad, Karachi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 150. On 19‑8‑1986, the respondent filed an application for ejectment against the appellant on the grounds of causing damage to the premises, being source of nuisance and personal requirement. The appellant controverted the allegations based on facts. According to him the respondent is in occupation of another shop where her husband is running the business of bakery. It is also pleaded by him that Muhammad Ayub, son of the respondent for whom the shop was required was engaged in running Suzuki Pick‑up on hire. His defence in main is that the respondent wanted to close his window by raising unauthorised construction, which forced him to file a suit for injunction, and as a result thereof the present proceedings were initiated. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:‑ Whether the shop in question is bona fide required by the applicant for the use of her son? . Whether the opponent has opened a window and thereby damaged the shop in question, as alleged ? Whether the opponent is a constant source of nuisance for the applicant ? What should the order be ? The respondent has examined herself (P.W.1) and her son Muhammad Ayub (P.W.2) , while the appellant has examined himself (D.W.1) and Khalique Ahmad (D.W.2). On the assessment of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the learned Rent Controller decided issues Nos.2 and 3 against the respondent. He, however, decided issue No.1, against the appellant giving rise to this appeal. The only grievance. learned counsel for appellant ventilates, is about the failure of Rent Controller to draw a distinction between a mere "wish" and a "genuine need" of the…