Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 21,22

Summary: The petitioner challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Court regarding a shop situated in H.A. Esmail Lotia Building, Karachi. The landlords claimed ownership, default in rent payment, non-use of the premises, and personal bona fide requirement as grounds for ejectment. The tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, default, and alleged personal need, claiming the case was filed for rent enhancement. The Rent Controller allowed eviction, and the appeal was dismissed. During constitutional proceedings, both parties agreed to settle the matter, whereby the tenant undertook to vacate the premises by 30.06.2026 upon payment of rent. The High Court disposed of the petition in terms of the undertaking and directed peaceful handover of possession. Sections / Articles Used: Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Sections 21 & 22, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 2-Word Case Description: Eviction Dispute Tenant Undertaking O R D E R  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned XIIth Additional District Judge / Model Civil Appellate Court, Karachi South in FRA No.31/2025 as well as Order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned IXth Rent Controller, Karachi (South) in Rent Case No.187/2022, whereby the ejectment application filed by Respondents No.1 & 2 was allowed, the Petitioner has preferred the instant Constitutional Petition. Briefly stated, Respondents No.1 & 2 claimed themselves to be the owners/landlords of H.A. Esmail Lotia Building situated at Plot No.MR-2/49, Corner Murad Khan Road, Main M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, and alleged that the Petitioner is a tenant in respect of Shop No.3 on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs.5,324/-. It was contended that the Petitioner had not been utilizing the demised premises for the last several years, thereby impairing its value and utility, and that the premises were required by Respondent No.2 for his…