| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 292 1993 SLD 292 1993 CLC 505 |
Sindh High Court
First Rent Appeals Nos. 134 and 135 of 1988, decided on 12th January, 1992. dates of hearing: 12th and 20th November, 1991.
QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J
Mohsin Tayebaly for Appellant (in both Appeals). H.A. Rahmani for
Respondent (in both Appeals).
First Rent Appeals Nos. 134 and 135 of 1988, decided on 12th January, 1992. dates of hearing: 12th and 20th November, 1991.
QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J
Mohsin Tayebaly for Appellant (in both Appeals). H.A. Rahmani for
Respondent (in both Appeals).
MRS. CHUNG PING HSIUNG
VS
Mst. SEEMA SAEED
Law:
Section:
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15 (2) (vii)---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Once it was' established that premises in question was required by landlord in good faith, Rent Controller was left with no other option but to order eviction of the tenant---Landlord was not obliged to make out a case of-absolute necessity, but had simply to prove that he required premises honestly and nothing beyond that. Sher Ahmad Jan v. Mst. Zubeda Nasreen 1989 CLC 1113 and Ghulam Fatima and 3 others v. Noor Hussain 1991 SCMR 1939 rel. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15 (i) (vii)---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation was a prerogative of landlord and he was not expected to make sacrifice to facilitate his tenant who had been able to establish his business in premises in dispute after spending huge amount and putting up hard labour. (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVIf of 1979)--- ----S. 15 (2) (vii)---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Demand of higher rent by landlord from tenant, would not per se cast any doubt about personal bona fide requirement of landlord in respect of premises in dispute, if same was proved independently. (d) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15 (2) (vii)----Personal bona fide need of landlord---Ladies who required premises in dispute for establishing their business were educated ladies and one of them was serving as teacher---Ladies wanted to utilise their money, abilities, energies and time in better manner with better results to further improve their financial position---Ladies could not be denied to use their own premises only because none of them from their family had earlier entered into business field. JUDGMENT Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, they are being disposed of by a consolidated judgment. 2. Mst. Seema Saeed, the respondent in F.RA. No. 134 of 1988 is the owner of Plot No.2-D/A and her sister Mst. Rashida Bukhari, the respondent in F.RA. No: 135 of 1988, is the owner of adjacent Plot…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492