Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1585 = 1991 CLC 1049
Sindh High Court
First Rent Appeal No.311 of 1987, heard on 22nd November, 1990.
Presented By: Before Haziqul Khairi, J
Hafiz A. Baqi for Appellant.
Respondent in person.

GHULAM RASOOL --- Appellant

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD WARIS BISMIL --- Respondent

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XV11 of 1979) --- ---- S. 15(2)(vii) --- Personal bona ride requirement --- Landlord requiring premises in dispute for his personal use and for the use of his children, nowhere had furnished any particulars about his children or other family members --- Landlord also had not stated anywhere as to why and for what business he required premises in question --- Landlord in circumstances failed to establish his case for his personal bona fide requirement in respect of premises in dispute. P L D 1990 SC 394; 1986 S C M R 1207 and 1984 C L C 2837 ref. Hafiz A. Baqi for Appellant. Respondent in person. Dates of hearing: 19th and 22nd November, 1990. JUDGMENT The appellant has impugned the order dated 31-1-1987, passed by the IVth Senior Civil Judge/ S.J./Rent Controller in Rent Case No.311/86, which was dismissed with costs. The appellant   had       filed an application under Section   15(i)(ii) and (v) of the    Sindh Rented Premises   Ordinance, 1979 against the respondent for     his   eviction on         the grounds of default             in payment   of rent and electric charges, nuisance and personal bona fide requirement. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order on the ground of personal bona ride requirement and did not press the appeal with regard to other two grounds, which were also rejected by the learned Rent Controller.   Learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice para.6 of the ejectment application in which it is stated as under:- "That premises in question is required in good faith for his own occupation and for the occupation and use of his children."   The personal bona fide requirement of the appellant was denied by the opponent stating that the appellant has malicious intention to evict the respondent as is evident from various cases pending in Court between the parties. In affidavit-in-evidence the appellant has stated as follows:- "6. I say that the premises in question is required…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register