| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 3797 = 1985 SLD 3797 = 1985 PLJ 144 |
Sindh High Court
First Ren! Appeal No. 247 of 1982, decided on 12-9-1984.
Presented By: SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J
Mr, Shafaat Hu$ain, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Asar Husain, Advocate for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 12-9-1984.
First Ren! Appeal No. 247 of 1982, decided on 12-9-1984.
Presented By: SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J
Mr, Shafaat Hu$ain, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Asar Husain, Advocate for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 12-9-1984.
M. S. KHAN—Appellant
VERSUS
S. M. SIRAJUDDIN-Respondent
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Section: 15
(i) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)— ——S. 15 (2) (vji)—Eviction — Persona! requirement — Ground of — Landlord— Bona ide of—Held : Normally burden to lie upon land­lord to prove his bona fide need for which e^tdence to be produc­ed by him—Held further : Landlord to prove only good faith and mala fide, if alleged, same to be proved by tenant. [P. 145]^ (ii) Sind lented'Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)— —--S. 15 (2) (?!i)—Eviction—Personal requirement— Landlord—Bona fide of—Landlord using premises as office before letting same out to tenant in 1964 Subsequently, landlord applying for eviction of tenant in 1972 for setting his office agains in premises—Held : Land­lord to be competent to come back in premises to use same as hi» office provided sufficient evidence be produced to satisfy court about bona fides of his need. [P. H6]B (Hi) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) — —Ss. 15 (2) (vti) & 21—Eviction—Persona! use — Landlord — Ma/afide on part of—Effect of—Landlord concealing all material facts from court—Tenant, on other hand, proving bad faith and mala fide on part of landlord— Held : Order of ejectment to be set aside in circumstances. [P. 141]C judgment This first Rent Appeal is directed against impugned order dated 18-2-19S2 of learned XVII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi, Whereby ejectment has been granted on the ground of personal need.premises in question as such were let out to the tenant by the landlord in the year 1964 and before that the same premises were being used by the landlord as office. It is therefore,, stated that how can the landlord turn back and say that he wants the premises again for use as office, when knowingly he had Jet out the premises and maintained proper main office ias Saleh Mohammad Street. There is not much force in this contention for the reason that if the landlord wants to come back in the same premises to use them as his office, he can do so provided he produces sufficient evidence to satisfy…