Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3),199,10A,23 & 24

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15(2)(ii),15(2)(iv),15(2)(vii),21(1-C)

Core summary The case concerns eviction of a tenant from Flat No. A-06, 3rd Floor, Farooq Manzil, Karachi, on grounds including rent default, damage to the building, and the co-owner Nafees Ahmed’s bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller dismissed the case; the First Appellate Court allowed eviction on the personal-need ground; the Sindh High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the appellate order and restored the Rent Controller’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held the High Court acted as a second appellate forum, misread evidence, and misapplied settled law that a landlord is the best judge of his own requirement; it converted the leave petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the High Court and Rent Controller orders, and restored the 2019 eviction judgment, while granting the tenant six months’ time to vacate. Key points  Parties & property: Co-owners (petitioners) vs. tenant (respondent); subject tenement is Flat No. A-06 (Old No. 23), 3rd Floor, Farooq Manzil, Raam Bagh Quarters, Saddar, Karachi. Rent & occupancy: Tenant pays Rs. 410/month plus charges; occupation challenged on multiple SRPO grounds. Grounds for eviction: Default in rent payment (since March 2011) – Section 15(2)(ii), SRPO 1979. Damage affecting material value/utility of sewerage system/structure – Section 15(2)(iv), SRPO 1979. Landlord’s personal bona fide need (co-owner Nafees Ahmed) – Section 15(2)(vii), SRPO 1979. Procedural history: Rent Controller (20.01.2018): dismissed ejectment on all issues. First Appellate Court (25.11.2019): allowed appeal on personal-need ground; ordered eviction. Sindh High Court (11.11.2025, C.P. S-120/2020): set aside appellate order; restored Rent Controller’s dismissal. Supreme Court (instant judgment): converted leave to appeal into appeal; allowed it; restored 2019 eviction order. Supreme Court’s reasoning highlights: Landlord’s sole testimony on oath, consistent with the ejectment application, suffices to prove bona fide personal need. Landlord is “absolute master/sole judge” of his requirement and may choose the specific tenement; courts cannot…