Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.1104 of 1982, decided on 8th May, 1986.

---S.15(2)(vii)--Personal bona fide requirement--Landlord getting one shop vacated but not starting his business in that shop--Landlord not stating in his application the kind of business he wanted to start--Eviction application, held, rightly dismissed.

1984 C L C 3066 and P L D 1985 S C 38 rel.

Faizanul Haq for Appellant.

Ajeebullah Jaswal for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1986.

By this First Rent Appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 20-9-1982 of XIth Rent Controller whereby he dismissed the rent case of appellant.

Appellant Muhammad Siraj is landlord and respondent No.1 Muhammad Ayub is tenant in respect of a shop at the rate of Rs.100 per month. The rent case No.55/79 was filed on 2-1-1979 on the ground of sublet and personal bona fide requirement. The written statements were filed on 13-5-1979 in which respondents denied the allegations and stated that appellant has filed rent case mala fide as he wants to let out the premises to some other person on higher rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following two issues.

(1) Whether the opponent No.1 has sublet the premises in case to opponent No. 2.

(2) Whether the applicant requires the premises in case in good faith for establishing his business therein, if yes, what is the effect

I have heard Mr.Faizanul Haq for the appellant and Mr. Ajeebullah for the respondent.

It is contended by Mr. Faizanul Haq that respondent No.2 is actually running the shop therefore respondent Muhammad Ayub has sublet the premises. He has also argued that appellant wants to start business therefore he requires the premises in good faith.

Mr.Ajeebullah appearing for the respondent has stated that from time to time respondent No.1 executing the rent agreements in which respondent No.2 was attesting witness. It is also argued that both the parties are friends of the appellant was accepting rent from the respondent No.2 but he did not object to it. It has also been argued that during the pendency of the rent case appellant filed ether rent case for the shop which is adjacent to the premises and got that shop vacated and did not start the business in that shop but let out on rent to other person.

Appellant in his evidence stated that he retired from Government service in the year 1969. This disputed shop was rented out to the respondent in the year 1975 after his retirement. He has admitted that in the agreement respondent No.2 Aftab Ahmad was a witness and used to pay the rent on behalf of respondent No.1 and appellant used to acknowledge receipts in the name of respondent No.1. He has also admitted that counterfoils kept by him were also signed by the respondent No.2 and he used to sit in the shop from the beginning. There is no convincing evidence that shop has been sublet to the respondent No.2. The Rent Controller has rightly decided this issue in favour of the tenant.

Now I come to the another issue of personal bona fide 'requirement. The appellant in his evidence stated that he rented out another shop to a tailor in the year 1975 but that tailor left and another tailor is his tenant since two years. It is clear from his evidence that in 1978 he got one shop vacated but he did not start his business in that shop. The appellant in his rent application has not stated which kind of business he wants to start. On this Mr. Ajeebullah has referred to the cases reported in 1984 C L C 3066 and P L D 1985 S C 38. The Rent Controller in my view has rightly exercised discretion in favour of the respondent and his order calls for no interference, with the result that appeal is dismissed.

M.A.K./M-206/K Eviction declined.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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