| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1724 1961 SLD 1724 = 1961 PLD 28 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1960, decided on 23rd November 1960.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C.J, Amiruddin Ahmad, S. A. Rahman and Fazle Akbar, JJ
Z. H. Lari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. A. Nusrat Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Attorney for Appellant. S. M. Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ali Sayeed Attorney for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1960, decided on 23rd November 1960.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C.J, Amiruddin Ahmad, S. A. Rahman and Fazle Akbar, JJ
Z. H. Lari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. A. Nusrat Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Attorney for Appellant. S. M. Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ali Sayeed Attorney for
Respondent.
ABDULLAH BALOCH-Appellant
VERSUS
ADAM ALI-Respondent
Law: Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 22nd January 1959, in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1957). Karachi Rent Restriction Act (VIII of 1953), S. 10 (2) (c) (ii)-Premises required by landlord for brother-Premises, however, not shown to have been held "for benefit" of such brother-Clause inapplicable. Karachi Rent Restriction Act (VIII of 1953,) S. 10 (2) (e) (i) (ii)-" Certificate" of Controller must satisfy all formal requirements of law, e.g. that premises are "reasonably and in good faith" required for re-construction-Re-construction of premises linked up by landlord with his own personal requirement i.e., residence-Such requirement found to be neither reasonable nor in good faith-Requirement of mere reconstruction not a valid ground for granting certificate. The Rent Controller's "certificate" under section 10 (2), Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953 being in the nature of an enabling document in law, must in order to be effective, satisfy all the formal requirements of law. At the same time, if in substance, the finding were one which met those requirements, even though certain words enjoined by the law were not expressly used, the Courts would not easily be moved to avoid such a certificate. Where the landlord, in his application to the Rent Controller, had linked up the requirement of reconstruction with his own Personal requirements expressly and in most specific manner and the findings of the Rent Controller specifically negatived each of the presonal requirements alleged by the landlord : Held that these findings must necessarily react upon the allegation of reasonable and bona fide requirement fur reconstruction. Requirement for reconstruction, for the sake of reconstruction, is not a valid requirement to enable a landlord to obtain ejectment of a tenant under the Act. It must be a reasonable and bona fide requirement. Absence of the words "reasonably and in good faith" from the order of the Rent Controller did not merely have the effect of rendering the order defective in the light of the…