Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 3001 = 1982 SLD 3001 = 1982 CLC 2
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
First Rent Appeal No. 31 of 1980, decided on 1st March, 1980.
Presented By: Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J
Mumtaz Ahmad for Appellant.

HASHIM BHAI-Petitioner

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ-Respondent

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 21

Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) S. 21-Eviction-Order of eviction challenged on grounds of landlord having another premises where he carried on business and having asked for enhancement of rent of premises-Evidence, however, not showing landlord demanding enhancement of rent and landlord deposing to be unemployed and having no other business and requiring premises to commence his business - Eviction order maintained.                                                                                                                                                       ORDER In this case R & P has been called for and has been examined by me. The Rent Controller has been pleased to grant eviction on the ground o personal bona fide use and the finding is challenged on three grounds firstly, that the landlord has another premises at Lawrence Road where he was carrying on business under the name and style of Sun Light Metal Works ; secondly, that the landlord had asked for enhancement of rent and lastly, that the landlord has other premises. In so far as the last contention is concerned I had understood the learned counsel for the appellant as suggesting that some vacant shops were lying with the landlord but he had ail the same chosen to seek eviction of the appellant from the shop in dispute. However, it would appear from the evidence that the case is that there are other premises but what was probably sought to be argued was that the landlord, therefore, ought to have proceeded against the other tenants in occupation of adjoining to choose one of the tenanted shop for his personal bona fide use and if that is established as the fact that there were other tenanted shops and the landlord had not proceeded against any of them would not be relevant. As regards the first contention no…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register