Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal No. 312 of 1980, decided on 21st September, 1983.

-----S. 13‑Ejectment for personal requirement‑Assertion of landlord on oath about fact of his requiring premises for own use, held, to be accepted as sufficient proof of his bona fide requirement if consistent with averments in his application and not shaken in cross‑examination or disproved in rebuttal.

Messrs Eveready Pictures v. Chaman Begum P L D 1982 Kar. 770 ; Hasan Khan v. Mrs. Munawar Begum P L D 1976 Kar. 832 and Mst. Taheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad 1980 S C M R 593 rel.

Khuda Bux Umrani for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 21st September, 1983:

The appellant is owner of a shop situated on Tarachand Road Keamari, Karachi. It was rented out by him to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 75 in the year 1974. He filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller, Karachi being Rent Case No. 1601/74. The ground on which the application was based was the personal requirement in good faith of the applicant for the shop in question. His case was that for the last two years he is jobless and that he wants the shop in question for his own use as mechanic. After recording of the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller was satisfied that the appellant required the shop in question for his bona fide use. Accordingly by his judgment dated 5‑3‑1978 learned XVth Civil Judge/IV Rent Controller passed an ejectment order against the respondent.

2. The respondent filed an appeal being Rent Appeal No. 201/78 which was allowed by the first Additional District Judge, Karachi by his order, dated 11‑5‑1980. Hence this second Appeal.

3. The appellant stated in his evidence that he was previously working as foreman in Pan‑Islamic Shipping Company and that for the last two years he was unemployed. He claimed to be motor mechanic and stated that he wants to run his own shop as motor mechanic in the rented premises. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the ejectment application mainly on the ground that the appellant had not produced any certificate in proof of his being a motor mechanic. It appears that the learned lower Appellate Court has not properly gone through the evidence of the parties. The respondent/tenant in his deposition before the Rent Controller admitted in his examination‑in‑chief that the appellant was not in any service for the last two years. He also admitted in cross-examination that the appellant does not own or possess any other shop. He further admitted that the appellant used to help mechanics on the shops. In view of these admissions, it is not understood how the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellant did not require the shop in question for his bona fide requirement. It was not necessary for the appellant to produce any certificate to prove that he was mechanic. The admission of the respondent that the appellant used to help mechanics on shop is sufficient to prove his claim that he was in a position to run a mechanic's shop. The judgment of the lower Court is at the face of it based on misreading of the evidence. The claim of the appellant as set up in his deposition, is not only not denied by the respondent, but on the contrary it is substantially admitted by the respondent in his deposition .

4. So far as personal requirement of a landlord is concerned usually assertion of the landlord on oath is to be accepted as sufficient proof of his bona fide requirement if consistent with the averments in his application and not shaken in cross‑examination or disproved in rebuttal. In support of this view reliance has been placed on Messrs Eveready Pictures v, Chaman Begun (P L D 1982 Kar. 770). The learned Judge who decided the above case has based his finding on Hasan Khan v. Mrs. Munawar Begun (P L D 1976 Kar. 832) and Mst. Tauheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad (1980 S C M R 593).

5. In view of the above discussion the judgment of the lower appellate Court which is based on misreading of the evidence cannot be sustained. The bona fide requirement of the appellant is proved from his deposition which is consistent with his main application. The claim of the appellant is admitted in substance by the respondent himself in his deposition. The ejectment application was, therefore, wrongly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment of the first appellate Court is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored with costs. The respondent shall vacate the shop in question and hand over its possession to the appellant within two months.

M. B. A. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.