1987 S C M R 2051
1987 S C M R 2051
Present: Muhammad Haleem, C.J. Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Mrs. SHAHNOOR FAZALPetitioner
versus
GHULAM AKBAR MANGIRespondent
Civil Petition No. 207/K of 1984, decided on 22nd January, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 1921984 passed by the High Court of Sind in First Rent Appeal No. 851 of 1982).
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
Ss. 14 & 15Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of premises by landladyOrder of ejectment made by Rent Controller set aside by High CourtPetitioner's counsel unable to convince Court as to how in absence of a specific pleading as to vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of respondent from the disputed premisesOrder of High Court, held, was unexceptionablePetition for leave to appeal dismissed.
M. Shabbir Ghaury, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J. Leave to appeal is sought against the order of the High Court, dated 19th February, 1984, by which First Rent Appeal No. 851 of 1982, was allowed and the ejectment application was dismissed.
The order is challenged on the ground that the disputed premises was required in good faith for the residence of the petitioner whose husband had been promoted as VicePresident of the United Bank, and, accordingly, was not entitled to an official residence. The Rent Controller accepted the ground and ordered the ejectment of the respondent holding 'that whenever the disputed flat will be vacated then the applicant will shift to his own accommodation after joining both the flats together'. This was not the case of the petitioner in her application for ejectment nor in the affidavit filed by her husband who was her attorney, and it was only in his crossexamination that the need for this disputed premises was stated in the manner in which the Rent Controller has accepted it. If at all, the flat lying vacant was not suitable for her needs it was then necessary that she should have made out a case that the flat which was lying vacant was not sufficient for her needs and that it was for that reason that the disputed flat was needed by her. This was a legal requirement which had to be pleaded and proved. Not having done so, it was not open to the Rent Controller to take notice of what transpired in the evidence. The High Court took note of this deficiency and rightly held that in the absence of such a pleading it cannot be said that the disputed premises was required in good faith. Accordingly, it reversed the conclusion of the trial Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to convince us as to how in the absence of a specific pleading as to the vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable.
The petition is thus without any merit and dismissed.
S. Q./M218/S Petition dismissed.
Present: Muhammad Haleem, C.J. Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Mrs. SHAHNOOR FAZALPetitioner
versus
GHULAM AKBAR MANGIRespondent
Civil Petition No. 207/K of 1984, decided on 22nd January, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 1921984 passed by the High Court of Sind in First Rent Appeal No. 851 of 1982).
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
Ss. 14 & 15Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of premises by landladyOrder of ejectment made by Rent Controller set aside by High CourtPetitioner's counsel unable to convince Court as to how in absence of a specific pleading as to vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of respondent from the disputed premisesOrder of High Court, held, was unexceptionablePetition for leave to appeal dismissed.
M. Shabbir Ghaury, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J. Leave to appeal is sought against the order of the High Court, dated 19th February, 1984, by which First Rent Appeal No. 851 of 1982, was allowed and the ejectment application was dismissed.
The order is challenged on the ground that the disputed premises was required in good faith for the residence of the petitioner whose husband had been promoted as VicePresident of the United Bank, and, accordingly, was not entitled to an official residence. The Rent Controller accepted the ground and ordered the ejectment of the respondent holding 'that whenever the disputed flat will be vacated then the applicant will shift to his own accommodation after joining both the flats together'. This was not the case of the petitioner in her application for ejectment nor in the affidavit filed by her husband who was her attorney, and it was only in his crossexamination that the need for this disputed premises was stated in the manner in which the Rent Controller has accepted it. If at all, the flat lying vacant was not suitable for her needs it was then necessary that she should have made out a case that the flat which was lying vacant was not sufficient for her needs and that it was for that reason that the disputed flat was needed by her. This was a legal requirement which had to be pleaded and proved. Not having done so, it was not open to the Rent Controller to take notice of what transpired in the evidence. The High Court took note of this deficiency and rightly held that in the absence of such a pleading it cannot be said that the disputed premises was required in good faith. Accordingly, it reversed the conclusion of the trial Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to convince us as to how in the absence of a specific pleading as to the vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable.
The petition is thus without any merit and dismissed.
S. Q./M218/S Petition dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment