Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.69 of 1986, decided on 1st December, 1986.

---Ss.15 & 21--Ejectment--Personal bona fide requirement--Tenant failing to prove his contention that shop in question was not required bona fide for son of landlady--Evidence produced by 'landlady to prove personal requirement of premises supported by statement of her husband and a certificate produced from employer of landlady's son to the effect that he was working as a cutting master in a factory and that he could easily start his business as a tailoring master--Said certificate not challenged by tenant--Personal bona fide requirement of shop by landlady, held, was proved

Asghar Husain for Appellant.

Sh. Muhammad Usman for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 13th November, 1986.

This is an appeal under section 21 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) against the order, dated 20-1-1986. of VI Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, (West) whereby he directed the appellant to hand over the possession of the shop to the respondent within 30 days.

2. Rent Case No. 993 of 1985 was filed by Mst. Amina Begum against the respondent on personal bona fide requirement of the shop for the use of her son Noor Muhammad who wants to start his own business of tailoring. In written statement, opponent stated that the issue of personal requirement has been taken after five years of purchase of the premises which is with mala fide intention.

3. Before the Rent Controller, on behalf of Mst. Amina Begum, her attorney Allaudin and son Noor Muhammad were examined while on the other side respondent examined himself.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, only one issue with regard to the personal bona fide requirement of respondent's son Noor Muhammad was framed and rent application has been allowed.

5. I have heard Mr. Asghar Husain, advocate for the appellant. It is contended that the present premises were purchased by the respondent in the year 1980 but the rent case was filed after 5 years against all the three tenants who are doing their business. It is argued that the requirement at the same time for three shops is not bona fide. He has also argued that another rent case has also been filed by the respondent on the ground of default and in that case ejectment is allowed. His contention is that with mala fide intention cases are being filed. He has referred to the cases reported in 1984 S C M R 1089, 1985 S C M R 1600 and 1985 C L C 1053.

6. Mr. Shaikh Mohammed Usman, submitted that the evidence of attorney of respondent and her son Noor Muhammad has gone unshaken, therefore, personal bona fide requirement is proved. He has referred to the case reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 770. On personal bona fide requirement he has referred to the case reported in 1985 S C M R 522.

7. Allaudin Exh. 4, attorney of landlady Mst. Amina Begum who is her husband has stated that their son Noor Mohammed is serving in a factory as a cutting master and. he requires the shop in question for doing his business. He has also stated that in all there are three shops which are occupied by the tenants and respondent has filed cases for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement of her other son and myself. Noor Mohammad, Exh. 5, has stated that he is real son of the respondent. He is serving as a cutting master in a factory known as Seasonal Creations owned by Mr. M. Masood Alam. He has produced certificate of, his employer as Exh.A/2. He has stated that he required the shop in question for his own use to start tailoring business as he has no other shop for the purpose of his business. He wants to give up the service.

8. Appellant in his evidence, Exh.6, has stated that he is running business of electric fans in the Shop No.2 and has a large family consisting of four sons and 5 daughters who depend on its income. He has stated that respondent's husband is purchasing the plots of market area and then applied for ejectment on the personal ground with mala fide intention. He stated that market in -question was purchased by the respondent on 31-1-1980 and remained quite vacant until 9-4-1985 when this case was filed. The relationship of Noor Mohomed with the respondent is disputed, therefore, shop in question. is not at all required for personal use.

9. The evidence of appellant has not been corroborated by any other witnesses. He has stated that Noor Mohomed is living at Bahrain. He has not been able to produce any documentary evidence in support of this allegation. On the other hand, Allaudin, who is father of Noor Mohomed has clearly stated that the shop in question is required for personal bona fide requirement of his son. His evidence gets support from Noor Mohomed. He has been examined and produced certificate, Exh.A/2 of his employer showing that he is working in his factory as a cutting master since long period. This certificate has not been challenged. So far relationship is concerned, a copy of the identity card, Exh. A/1, has been produced which stows that this Noor Mohomed is the son of Allaudin, therefore, the contention of the appellant that he is not son of respondent cannot be sustained. It has come on the record that Noor Mohomed is working as cutting master in a factory of M. Masood Alam, therefore, he can easily start his business as a tailoring master. In my view the bona fide requirement of the shop has been proved and Rent Controller has rightly allowed the ejectment application. The order of the Rent Controller calls for no interference. The appeal having no merits is dismissed.

10. Before parting with this order I do not like to make any observations regarding other rent cases as such cases are to be decided on its own merits.

M.Y.H./Z-12/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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