ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI.

C.P.No.1372 of 2016

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For orders on CMA 5918/2016.

3. For hearing of main Case

4. For orders on CMA 5919/2016.

05.10.2016

            Mr. Anwar Ahmed Advocate for the petitioner.

                                    =

            It appears that the respondent No.1 Mst. Sabra Begum is owner of house No.20606 PIB Colony, Karachi, the ground floor of which was rented out to the petitioner. She filed a rent case No.116/2009 against the petitioner u/s 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the SRPO) for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide need. The said rent case was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he had purchased the said house from husband of the respondent (since dead) and that therefore, there was no relationship of tenancy between them. The rent case was, however, allowed in favour of the respondent vide Judgment dated 27.09.2012, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within 30 days. The petitioner was not satisfied with the said findings and  filed FRA bearing No.141/2012, but that too was dismissed vide impugned Judgment dated 13.04.2016, whereby he has been directed to handover the demised premises to respondent No.1 within 60 days. The petitioner is not yet satisfied and has filed this petition.

            The main ground emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments is that the rent application u/s 14 of the Act was not maintainable as  respondent No.1 was already in occupation of some other building owned by her where she was living. To support this point, he has read out section 14 of the SRPO. He has further contended that both the courts below have not appreciated  this fact, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

            I have heard learned counsel and seen the material available on record. It is obvious therefrom that the plea taken by the petitioner in the instant petition was duly considered by both the courts below and they have concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish purchasing the said house. In addition, it may be mentioned that if a tenant raises a plea of purchasing the demised premises, then    the law stipulates that he has to vacate the premises and contest the civil suit to enforce his right as a purchaser and in case he succeeds in the civil suit, he can be put back into the possession. In the same terms, the petitioner is now required to vacate the premises in the wake of his such plea and contest the suit but the record further reflects that the suit by the petitioner for specific performance of contract has already been dismissed. In the circumstances, no material is available on record to justify interference in the concurrent findings of two courts below in the constitutional jurisdiction whose object is limited to see only illegalities floating on the face of record. I have gone through the impugned judgments, the two courts below have given reasons in support of their findings and have observed that the ground of personal bonafide need has not been shattered or rebutted. I see no reason to interfere in the said findings. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications.

                                                                                                JUDGE

A.K