Eviction of tenant, Personal bona fide need

P L D 2019 Sindh 18

—-Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 2(g)—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23, 24 & 199—Eviction of tenant—Personal bona fide need for a family member of
the landlord—Scope—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Petitioner/landlord contended that both the Courts below had wrongly
declined his claim of personal bona fide need, merely on the ground that he failed to mention particular name(s) of any person from his family
for whom demised premises were needed—Validity—Held, though very limited scope was permitted in constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in
such matter but it was responsibility of the High Court to protect property rights envisaged by Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution—Record
revealed that while Rent Controller had acknowledged that during cross-examination the petitioner submitted that the premises was needed for
the marriage of his son, however, Rent Controller treated the same as a variance between his (landlord’s) need and need of another family
member—None of the two Courts below was competent to pierce through the family needs, seeking pin pointation of the person for whom the
property was needed as long as need was coming from within the family—Sections 2(g) & 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,
1979 collectively stipulated that Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 treated the landlord and his spouse or his family members as ‘one unit’
and became satisfied to handover the possession to any of the said persons—To breakdown the solidarity and integrity of the family unit of the
landlord and to put in the witness box landlord’s wife or his children or other family members for whom the landlord needed the demised
property was not required—If such would have been the intention of the Legislature, it would have been so specifically spelt out therein,
therefore, it was up to the landlord to satisfy the Rent Controller that the demised property was needed by him, his wife or children, making no
exposure for them to come up in the witness box and be examined or cross-examined individually—Said veil of family-integration was not
allowed to be ruptured and the tenant could not object to the internal arrangement worked out by the family amongst themselves in such regard-
–Conduct of respondent disclaiming his relationship with landlord itself disentitled the respondent from any equitable relief—High Court set
aside judgments passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Post excerpts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *