Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1642 = 1991 CLC 1226
Sindh High Court
First Rent appeal No.804 of 1988 decided on 20th January, 1991
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar, J
------- Mustafa Lakhani for Appellant. Nemo
Respondent (Absent).

ABDUL BASIT --- Appellant, J

VERSUS

Mrs. MUBARAK --- Respondent

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15

  Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ---S. 15(2)(vii) --- Personal bona fide requirement-From the very, nature provisions of S.15(2) (vii) authorising Rent Controller to eject tenant it was evident that, requirement of good faith was to be proved and not requirement simpliciter. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ---S.15(2)(ii) --- Default --- Agreement between parties was that the rent would be paid on the 5th of every month --- After expiry of that agreement terms and conditions of that agreement would continue and tenant would be bound to pay rent within 15 days of the date fixed between parties i.e. up to 20th of every month---Tenant having failed to tender rent accordingly had committed default even, if he afterward had tendered rent. Zarina Khawja v. Agha Mahboob Shah P L D 1988 SC 190 ref. Mustafa Lakhani for Appellant. Nemo Respondent (Absent). Date of hearing: 20th January, 1991. JUDGMENT The appellant filed case for ejectment against the respondent in respect of house on Plot No.B/l 35 Block 1, North Nazimabad, Karachi the house was rented out to the husband of the respondent Mubarak Ali on monthly rent of Rs.700 And after his death the respondent continued to be the tenant on the same terms and conditions. The original, tenancy was created under an agreement dated 3rd April, 19,76, which was for a period of eleven months. According to clause 2 of this agreement the rent of the house was fixed at Rs.450 p.m. and was payable on or before, 5th of each month. The ejectment was sought on grounds (1) default, in payment, of rent from May, 1985, (2) personal. bona fide requirement, (3) unauthorised additions and alterations made by the   respondent which had impaired the value and utility of the premises, (4) subletting of the premises, (5) change of use of the premises by the appellant for a purpose other that it was let out and (f)) that the tenancy agreement had expired and therefore the respondent is liable to be ejected. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application and gave his findings on all issues against the appellant. I have heard Mr. Mustafa Lakhani. The respondent and his Advocate Are,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register