Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 20 of 1986, decided on 19th April, 1987.

---Ss.15 & 21--Ejectment on ground of personal bona fide requirement--Landlord and tenant--Relationship of--Rate of rent and ownership of premises not "disputed--Premises being used as a factory by partnership firm--Appellant, claiming to be only a partner of such firm, denying relationship of landlord and tenant--No written agreement between parties but tenancy shown to be existing since before 1972 and partnership deed relied upon was of 1974--Tenant/Appellant not examining any partner of the firm in support of his case--Letter and certificate issued by appellant proving that he was a tenant of the premises being' sole owner of the factory running therein--Rent Controller had, therefore, rightly, held, that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties--Landlord stating in his evidence that he was out of Karachi in connection with his employment on contract basis and same having expired he wanted to start his own factory in the disputed premises and that he had no other building in town--Tenant taking plea that as landlord could start his business in the portion of the premises in his possession which was lying vacant, his personal requirement was, therefore, not in good faith--Contention of landlord was that said portion was not sufficient for him--Held, Rent Controller having considered all the evidence, had rightly allowed the rent case on personal bona fide requirement.

P L D 1961 Kar.237; 1980 C L C 1969: 1984 C L C 3435 and 1985 C L C 3014 distinguished.

Muhammad Sadiq for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing: 12th April, 1987.

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed by appellant Amanullah Qureshi against the judgment dated 24-11-1985 of Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East) whereby rent application has been allowed and the Appellant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises .in question to the respondent within one month from the order.

The facts are that rent case was filed by respondent on the grounds of default, damage to the property and personal bona fide requirement.

The Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed following four Issues:-

(1) Whether the application is not maintainable

(2) Whether the opponent requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use

(3) Whether opponent has damaged the property in question

(4) Whether opponent has committed default in payment of rent, water and conservancy charges

Issues Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of damage to the property and default were decided against the respondent while rent application has been allowed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement only.

Appellant in the written statement disputed the relationship with respondent and submitted that M/s. Aman Soap Factory are the tenants and he is only one of -the partners of the firm, therefore, rent application is not competent. This issue was also framed by the Rent Controller and he came to the conclusion that there exists relationship between the appellant and the respondent.

Appellant examined himself while respondent also examined himself only. Both have not examined any other, witness in support of their case.

Mr. Sadiq appearing for the appellant mainly argued the case on the point that there exists no relationship as Amanullah Qureshi is not the tenant in the disputed premises and he is only a partner. He has submitted the original partnership deed show that in Aman Soap Factory there are other partners also. Mr. Sadiq has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1961 Karachi 237, 1980 C L C 1969, 1984 C L C 3435. On the point of personal requirement he has also referred to the case reported in 1985 C I, C 3014 and submitted that some portion of the same building is in possession of the respondent, therefore, requirement is mala fide.

I have also heard respondent Shaikh Umer Din who has appeared personally and argued his case. It is contended by him that tenancy exclusively is in favour of Amanullah Qureshi and he has admitted this fact in his letters but subsequently he has taken this false plea. It is argued that Amanullah is a tenant since 1972 and on this he has relied on page 155 of the lower Court record and submitted that he was running his business in the name of Shama Industries in the premises at that time and has been changing from time to time with mala fide intention. He has argued that he is sitting without any work since last five years and he wants to start his own business in the premises.

The rate of rent and ownership of the premises is not disputed by Mr. Sadiq who is appearing for the appellant. There is no written agreement between the parties but from the receipt as referred above the tenancy appears to be before 1972 and partnership deed read upon is of 1974. Appellant has not examined any partner of the firm in support of his case. However, leaving aside this aspect the letter dated 7-4-1981 signed by Amanullah is as under:-

" Aman Soap Factory

Manufacturers of High Quality Soaps

Ref. No. ______ M.M.17, P.I.B. Colony, Near Makrani Masjid. Karachi 7-4-1981.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I Mr. Amanullah Qureshi son of Haji Muhammad Amin (Late) do hereby confirm that a portion of property bearing No.HA/ SI-127 situated at P.I.B. Colony Karachi-5 is in my possession as a tenant of Mr.U.D. Chawla s/o Haji Rafiuddin Chawla (late) and neither I nor -my factory Aman Soap Factory have no other right what so ever on it.

Sd/-"

In this letter he has admitted to be in possession of the portion of the premises as tenant. This letter also shows that he is tenant of a portion bearing No. HA/SI-127 situated at P.I.B. Colony, Karachi. The subsequent letter Annexure 'H' also shows that he is the tenant as he has been carrying out the correspondence with the landlord in respect of rent etc. The appellant in his affidavit-in -evidence has not denied the contents of both the letter as referred above and certificate issued by him.

The cases cited by Mr. Sadiq are on different footings as in all those cases there was a dispute about relationship but in this case Amanullah has admitted to be the tenant to the extent of being a partner of Aman Soap Factory but he could not prove it. The only document on which he has relied is rent receipt dated 13-1-1976 and one receipt of 1974 showing that receipts were issued in the name of Aman Soap Factory. It is an admitted position that Aman Soap Factory is being run in the premises and it is the case of the appellant that he is the sole owner of the Aman Soap Factory, therefore, in view of his own writings as referred above,, receipts cannot help him. Therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It would be worthwhile to mention that he is .a tenant of the present premises since 1974 with the tenancy as Aman Soap Factory and has taken the possession of the tenement himself from Nawabdin Chawla and took the entire premises on rent.

The next question is of personal bona fide requirement. As stated above, Mr.Sadiq's contention is that the respondent was handed over some portion of the premises for carrying on his business but he has failed to do so and that portion is lying vacant. The contention of respondent is that aforesaid portion was never rented out and it is not sufficient as there is no electricity and water etc. There is force in the arguments of the respondent as in letter dated 7-4-1981 Annexure 'B' it "is stated that appellant is a tenant of a portion of the premises. Respondent in his evidence stated that he was residing in Lahore in the year 1982 and was a Development Engineer of Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. on a contract basis. His contract expired )n 13-7-1982, thereafter he informed in writing to the appellant of registered post letter on 15-2-1982 and demanded vacant possession. He has stated that he belonged to Karachi and was in Lahore for a period of seven years only on account of his association with Pakistan Tobacco Co. from where he has come to Karachi and he has no other building except the premises in question. He has stated that he wants to start his own factory. He has also stated that he is a qualified engineer. The appellant has failed to prove that respondent is doing any other business in Karachi. The plea taken by the appellant is that respondent can start his own business of plastic manufacturing industry in the portion which is in his possession which is lying vacant, therefore, personal bona fide requirement is not in good faith.

The Rent Controller has considered all this evidence and rightly allowed the rent case on personal bona fide requirement. For the I reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed and consequently the order of the Rent Controller is upheld.

S. Q./A-168/K 1 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.