Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.360 of 1983, decided on 4th February, 1987.

---Ss.15 & 21--Ejectment--Personal bona fide requirement--Landlord residing on second floor of building, -requiring eviction of his tenant on ground floor for purpose of expanding his business of garments- Landlord admitting in his cross-examination that his first floor premises was let out during pendency of case to some other tenant--Fact of renting out such premises during pendency of rent proceedings by itself, unless explained by cogent and convincing evidence' that first floor was not suited to his need would militate against his bona fides--Landlord not stating in what manner he wanted to expand his business--Landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use, held, was not established in circumstances--Order of dismissal of ejectment application maintained.

---Ss.15 & 21--Personal bona fide requirement--Where a landlord filed an application for ejectment on ground of personal bona fide requirement, entire burden, held, would be upon him to establish his requirement and good faith.

Raja Meer Muhammad for Petitioner.

Ismail Padhiar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th February, 1987.

The appellant filed an application for ejectment of the respondent. from a shop situated on the ground 'floor of the premises bearing No.M.R.3/12 Suleman Street Boulton Market, Karachi. The appellant is residing on the second floor of the said premises. The ground for ejectment was that he requires the premises for his personal bona fide requirement. The requirement as elucidated in the evidence was that he is running a business of manufacturing garments and for that purpose he wants the disputed shop. The respondent denied the claim and pleaded that the appellant has let out the premises on the first floor which was earlier rented out to one Abdul Majeed. and that he has got a building on a plot of 1000 sq. yards in Sher Shah Estate area which is more suited for his business. The learned Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish his case and by the impugned order dismissed the ejectment, application.

Mr. Raja Meer Muhammad the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the burden to establish that the respondent had let out the first floor premises was on the respondent which has not been discharged. The main emphasis of the learned counsel is that in the pleading as well as in the affidavit of evidence it has been stated that one Abdul Majeed was. the tenant of the first floor which he has surrendered to the appellant who has let it out. It is true that from the evidence the fact that Abdul Majeed was the tenant can not be fully established, but, the fact remains that in his cross examination the appellant has admitted that the first floor premises was let out during the pendency of the case. In these circumstances the question whether Abdul Majid was the tenant of the first floor is immaterial. In the fact of this admission it is established that during the pendency of this case the first floor of the building was vacated and let out by the appellant to some other tenant. This fact by itself unless explained by cogent and convincing evidence that the first floor was not suited to the appellant's need militates against his bona fide. '

Where a landlord files an application for ejectment on ground establish his requirement and good faith. In the present case the appellant has stated that he is running a small business of manufacturing garments in his residential house on the second floor. He goes and distributes the work to other persons. Therefore, the nature of work as described by him is that he goes and distributes the work to the workers in other locality and collects them once the garments are prepared. The appellant has not stated the volume of business. He admits that he does not pay income-tax and, therefore, it can be presumed that the business is on a small scale. The appellant has not stated in what manner he wants to expand his business. The appellant has not produced any reliable evidence to establish the volume of business and the need for which- he requires the premises nor the appellant has produced any convincing evidence to show that the first floor premises was not suitable for his business. These facts go a long way to show that the appellant does not require the premises bona fide and for his personal use.

Mr. Ismail Padhiar the learned counsel has pointed out that the appellant has been enrolled as an Advocate thus his requirement has vanished. This is an admitted position that he was admitted as an advocate of the Subordinate Courts on 19-9-1986. This is a subsequent event but as the appeal can be disposed of on evidence on record while deciding it I have not taken this fact in to consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.

M.Y.H./J-14/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.