Find a Lawyer

First. Rent Appeal No.310 of 1984, decided on 14th December, 1986.

---Ss.15 & 21--Personal requirement--Landlord filing two 'ejectment applications for vacation of his two shops, required for his two sons who picked up training in different technology and wanted to start their job independently--Landlord succeeding in one case and one shop was vacated while in case of other shop, his ejectment application was dismissed on ground that one of two shops had already been vacated and that would be sufficient to meet with requirement of landlord--Finding of Rent Controller, held, was not tenable Landlord required bona fide his other shop also for accommodating his other son for thriving his trade in technology acquired by him--Order of Rent Controller set aside and tenant directed to vacate the other shop in circumstances.

1980 S C M R 974; 1985 S C M R 1969; 1984 C L C 755; 1984 C L C 461 and 1980 C L C 1082 ref.

Abid Hameed Puri for Respondent.

The appellant Muhammad Said sought ejectment of the respondent Jalil Ahmed from a rented shop on plot No.224 on the ground that he needed the shop for expanding his trade with the assistance of his two sons, one of them trained up as an Automobile mechanic and another as a motor welder. The ejectment case wa2i filed before Xth Senior Civil Judge/ Controller, Karachi and it was numbered as Rent Case No.1775 of 1978. The respondent resisted the case contending that the appellant /landlord was already doing his welding job in another shop and two sons could be accommodated there and they did not bona fidely need the shop for expending their trade. The parties adduced evidence in the form of Affidavits. The learned Controller dismissed the ejectment case on the ground that the appellant had filed another Rent Case No.1774 of 1978 against another tenant and that case was decided in his favour on that day and therefore the landlord's need for the premises to accommodate leis sons stood satisfied and he did not need the third shop in occupation of the respondent for extending his trade. This order was passed on 12-2-1984. This appeal is directed against that order.

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant's two sons were trained in two different technologies and each of them needed the shop separately for exploiting the technic acquired by them. He has submitted that the appellant's bona fidely need for additional premises for accommodating his trained up sons was upheld by this Court in FRA No.264 of 1984 decided on 3-4-1985 and that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court by order dated 3-6-1985 in Civil Petition K-231/86. He has produced photostat copies of the two decisions mentioned above. He has placed reliance on two authorities cited as 1980 S C M R 974 and 1985 S C M R 1969. He has urged that the learned Controller has erred in holding the view that the order of ejectment passed in another case in respect of another shop disentitled the appellant /landlord from getting the second shop vacated.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant was already doing his job as a welder in one of his three shops and that shop, being larger in size, was sufficient for him and his two sons to do their jobs or, at the most, they needed one shop more and another shop had become available to them by way of ejectment sought by the appellant in ejectment case No.1774/78 and their need did not extend to getting yet another shop vacated. He has pointed out that it was not disclosed in the ejectment application against the respondent that the appellant needed two more shops for accommodating his two sons. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in P L D 1983 Kar. 570; 1984 C L C 755; 1984 C L C 461 and P L D 1985 Kar. 624.

The appellant is, no doubt, doing welding job in one of the three shops and the other two shops were let out, one to the respondent Jalil Ahmed and another to one Muhammad Shafi. He had filed ejectment cases against both the tenants namely Jalil Ahmed appellant and Muhammad Shafi. He succeeded in the ejectment case filed against, Muhammad Shafi, while the ejectment case filed against the respondent Jalil Ahmed was dismissed on the ground that only one of the two rented shops could meet his need for accommodating, his sons in profession. It is not disputed that the appellant's one son has acquired training in motor welding and another son is automobile mechanic. The appellant himself has been doing motor welding and denting job. Since appellant's two sons have picked up training in different technologies, the appellant would need suitable accommodation for them to do their job independently and it did not lie in the discretion of the learned Controller as to have squeezed the need of the appellant to accommodate his two sons to do their job in different technologies in one shop. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent had different aspects. In the case reported in P L D 1983 Kar. 570 (Qamar Din v. Hakeem Mehmood) the landlady was refused ejectment on the ground that he had suppressed the fact that he was owning other two shops, where as in this case the appellant had not suppressed that he was owning three shops. In the case reported in 1984 C L C 755 (Begum Jan v. Abdul Rasool), it was held that the landlord had to prove bona fides of his own need for the premises in seeking ejectment of the tenant. In the instant case, the appellant has made out the case of bona fide need for seeking ejectment of the respondent as discussed above. In the other case reported in the same Journal 1984 C L C 461 (Mat. Jina Bai v. Mst.Gulshan and another), it was held that ejectment is not to be granted on the ground not specifically urged in the ejectment application. But it is not so in the present case. In the fourth case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent viz. Sultan Press Ltd. v. Muhammad Hassan P L D 1985 Kar. 624, it was observed that the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant from the commercial premises for the purpose of expansion of business should give details of existing premises, should also disclose the resources and prospects for the expansion of his business. In the instant case, the appellant has disclosed that his two sons having acquired technical training would do the job they had acquired training for. In case Dildar Nayar v. Niaz Muhammad Dar and another 1985 S C M R 1769 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, landlord had sought ejectment of the tenant from three adjoining shops on the ground of his personal need of all the three shops. But he was allowed ejectment by the learned Controller in respect of only one shop and he was refused ejectment in respect of two other shops on the ground that only one shop could be sufficient for his need. The decision of the Controller was maintained by the District Judge in appeal following decision in the case Ghulam Farooq v. Fasal Ghani, reported in 1980 C L C 1082 that no landlord can simultaneously ask for the ejectment of the tenants from more than one shops on the ground of personal need. The view adopted by the learned Controller and the learned District Judge was not approved by the High Court and it was observed that in deeming the vacation of one shop as sufficient for the requirement of the landlord without objectively ascertaining his requirement was an untenable view. It was further held that law gave the landlord a choice to claim that he needed three of the shops at the same time and his claim was to be considered rather in pragmatic manner. The view taken by the High Court was not disturbed by the Supreme Court. In the case Khawaja Muhammad Abdullah v. Soofi Faiz Muhammad 1980 S C M R 974, also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was observed that requirement of the rented premises for accommodating each son of the landlord could be the ground for seeking ejectment. Considering the appellant's case in the above perspective, it appears that he bona fidely needs the shop in occupation of the respondent for accommodating there one of his sons for thriving his trade in the technology acquired by him.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Controller dated 12-2-1984 in Rent Case No.1775/78 is set aside and the case is decided in favour of the C appellant, and the respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of the rented shop to the-appellant within three months. No order is made for costs.

This appeal was disposed of by a short order made on 7-12-1986 and aforesaid are the reasons therefore.

M.-Y. H./M-190/K 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.