| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1552 = 1991 CLC 892 |
Sindh High Court
First Rent Appeals No.s 579 and 580 of 1989 decided on 4th November 1990.
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar, J
Ghulam Ghous for Appellant. Abdul Karim Siddiqui for
Respondent
First Rent Appeals No.s 579 and 580 of 1989 decided on 4th November 1990.
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar, J
Ghulam Ghous for Appellant. Abdul Karim Siddiqui for
Respondent
AFZAL HUSSAIN ---Appellant
VERSUS
Mst. NASEEM FATIMA---- Respondent
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Section: 15
Sindh Rented Premised Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ---S.15 (2) (vii) ---Personal bona fide requirement Son of landlady for whom shop in dispute was claimed to be required admittedly was running his business on open land adjacent to building in dispute and that open land did not belong to landlady but was Government land and son of landlady was in unauthorised occupation with a temporary thatchet on it---Personal bona fide requirement of landlord in respect of shop in dispute was thus fully established in circumstances. Ghulam Ghous for Appellant. Abdul Karim Siddiqui for Respondent . Date of hearing :4th November 1990. JUDGMENT These two appeals will be disposed of by this judgment. The respondents filed ejectment application against the appellants in both the appeals in respect of shops rented out to them on plot No. 190/1 Four Hundred Quarters Peerabad Gulbahar, Karachi. The only ground for seeking ejectment is that the premises is required for personal and bona fide requirement of Ale-Nabi Siddiqui the son of the landlady. The claim was resisted by both the tenants but the learned controller granted ejectment against them Mahboob Ali has filed F.R.A 580/8. The evidence of the parties in ejectment cases are identical. Mr. Ghulam Ghous the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent has failed to prove bona fide requirement and therefore, ejectment cannot be granted. In this regard learned counsel has pointed out that before filing the ejectment case the third shop which was in possession of the landlady/respondent was closed down to create a ground for ejectment. On the other hand the respondent has stated that shop was converted into residential premises about three years back as there are large number of family members and the accommodation was not sufficient. In this regard both the witnesses have given a list of the family members which are nine in number. They are occupying the rear portion of the shops and the first floor. The plot on which the building is constructed is 66.66 Sq. Yards. Six of the members are grown up and major persons. Therefore, the conversion of the shop into a residential portion seems to be…