Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Messrs CARPET CENTRE VS Respondent: MUSTAFA FARABI TAPU JAVERI and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Khilji Arif Hussain, Faisal Arab Title: Messrs CARPET CENTRE vs MUSTAFA FARABI TAPU JAVERI and others Case No.: Civil Petition No, 79-K of 2016 Date of Judgment:2016-03-30 Reported As: 2016 SCMR 1926 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---Against the eviction order passed against the petitioner by the learned High Court on the ground of personal need of the respondent No,1, this petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the personal need of the respondent was not established in evidence inasmuch as the respondent has claimed that he is a photographer but he has given contradictory statement by stating that he has adopted photography as a hobby whereas he has also stated that he is a professional photographer. He added that in the evidence it has come on record that the respondent is running a photo studio. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgments of this Court reported in the cases of Muhammad Sharif v. Amjad Ahsan (1989 SCM R 522) and Muhammad Hafeez v. District Judge, Karachi East (2008 SCM R 398). 3. We have noticed that personal need of the respondent was duly explained in a very categorical manner by stating that the person for whom the premises is required comes from a family of jewelers but he has adopted the profession of photography and wants a commercial premises to set up his own photo studio. The statement of the respondent that he has a studio does not mean that such studio is in some commercial premises. No question was put in the cross-examination to suggest that respondent already has a commercial premises where he has set up his photo studio. In the circumstances, the failure to establish in evidence mala fide on the part of the respondent- landlord was sufficient to direct eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises. Hence, no case for interference by this Court is made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.