Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 410 of 1983, decided on 17th March, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 15(2)(vii)‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑Proof‑‑Ground of personal bona fide requirement, pleaded by landlord in his eviction application remained unshaken in cross‑examination‑‑Rent Controller, held, rightly granted eviction of tenant on ground of personal bona fide requirement of landlord in circumstances.

Messrs Eastern Express Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Tariq Hameed PLD 1986 Kar. 84; Mushtaq Ali Jumani and another v. Mst. Amina Khatoon P L D 1986 Kar. 94 and Mst. Farukh Nisa v. Safdar Ahmad and 6 others P L D 1985 Kar. 639 ref.

‑‑‑S. 15 (2) (vii)‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑Proof‑‑Landlord requiring residential building for his residential purposes, did not disclose in evidence that he was possessed of certain commercial premises in commercial area‑‑Failure of landlord to disclose ownership of such commercial premises in evidence, held, would not amount to suppression of material fact by him before Court‑‑Even if landlord was possessed of more than one premises, it could not be denied that choice to occupy one of such premises was with landlord.

Haziq‑ul‑Khairi for Appellant.

Usman Ghani Rashid for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th March 1986.

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is filed by the appellant/ tenant against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No. 371 of 1978, instituted by the respondent.

The respondent instituted the above rent case against the appellant on the sole ground of personal and bona fide requirements. The personal and bona fide requirements were pleaded in the rent application in paragraphs 3 to 7 as follows:

"(3) That the applicant has been approaching the opponent at various occasions for the vacation of the portion occupied by him for the last one year, as the same is required for the occupation of his married son Meraj‑ul‑Haque.

(4) That the opponent avoided vacation of his occupied portion by one or other pretexts and false promises.

(5) That the applicant at last was obliged to get a rented house for his above son at Azizabad, Karachi.

(6) That the applicant is an old man of about 70 years of an age and now badly needed for near living of his son in the portion occupied by the opponent.

(7) That the above‑said premises was constructed in 1955 when my children were minors and now 6 have become adults. The present accommodation with the applicant is quite insufficient for his family consisting of 10 members, and thus he got the rented house for his married son at another place."

In support of his case, the respondent examined himself and his son Meraj‑ul‑Haque, for whose benefit the premises were needed. In denial of the case of the respondent, the appellant examined himself and closed his side. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence of the appellant and his son, reached the conclusion that the premises on the ground floor were needed by the respondent for his son, Meraj‑ul‑Haque, who is living in a rented house in Azizabad at a rent of 400.00 per month. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Rent Controller on the issue of personal and bona fide requirements on two grounds. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel that both the respondent and his son admitted in their cross-examinations that they owned other property, while in their respective examination‑in‑chief they had denied ownership of any other property and, as such, there was complete absence of bona fide on the part of the ‑respondent in seeking the eviction of the appellant from the premises. Secondly, it is urged by the learned counsel that the evidence on record did not establish any requirement for the premises, but it was only a case of mere desire on the part of the respondent, for which no eviction order could be passed by the Rent Controller. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the Rent Controller rightly granted eviction of the appellant on the ground of personal and bona fide requirements. I have already reproduced the ground of personal and bona fide requirements pleaded by the applicant in his application. The respondent, in his evidence, stated the same facts, which are stated in the application for eviction, and, in the cross‑examination could not be shaken at all. It was suggested to the respondent in cross‑examination that properties, bearing No. C‑584 and No. C‑586, were also owned by him, but he denied the suggestion, and stated that he gifted these properties to his wife in the year 1970‑71. He further stated that the record in respect of the above properties was changed in the name of his wife in the year 1970, and such entries have also been made in the record of P.E.C.H. Society. He further, in cross‑examination, admitted that Cafe National and Stores is situated in one of the tenements belonging to him. He also admitted that Cafe National and Stores are occupying the ground floor and first floor on Plot No. 41‑A, Commercial Area, P.E. C.H.S. , Karachi. On the basis of this admission made by the respondent in cross‑examination, it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that his application for eviction of the appellant from the premises was not a bona fide one, and should have been rejected by the Rent Controller. I am unable to understand the argument of the learned counsel, as by mere admission of the fact that Messrs Cafe National and Stores are occupying the ground floor and first floor of the building on Plot No. 41‑A, Commercial Area, P.E. C. H. Society, Karachi, it could be concluded that the application lacked bona fide.

From the statement, it is quite clear that Plot No. 41‑A is in Commercial Area, and nothing is shown in the evidence as to the nature of accommodation of that building. Mere fact that the respondent failed to disclose the ownership of this plot in his examination‑in‑chief could not lead to the conclusion that there was a suppression of any material fact by him in his evidence before the Court. Even if it be assumed that the respondent was possessed of more than one building, it cannot be denied that the choice to occupy one of such premises was with the landlord. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondent was in occupation of any other residential building, which could meet his requirement. In his evidence, the respondent gave the t6tal number of his family members, and he also stated that his married son is residing in a rented house in Federal 'B' Area, and is working as a Teacher. These material facts have not at all been contradicted. The desire of the respondent, who was admittedly an old man of seventy years, to accommodate his son, who is living in a rented premises, on the ground floor of the same building, where he is residing is neither unreasonable nor unjustified. Apart from it, the respondent, in support of his case, also examined his son Meraj‑ul‑Haque, who also in his evidence, fully supported the case of the respondent, and stated that, because of the old age of respondent, he wants to live in the house occupied by the appellant, so that he may properly look after his aged father. The learned counsel for the appellant made a submission before me that the son of the respondent, in his evidence, stated that he did not possess any property in Karachi, while, in his cross‑examination, he admitted that his name appears as owner in respect of a property, of which an extract PT‑I Register was produced. It' is accordingly contended by the learned counsel that, on the basis of this evidence, it can be presumed that the respondent's son has not come to the Court with clean hand, as he was possessed of another property in his name in the same area. I have seen the photostat copy of the extract, in which the name of the respondent's son appears as owner. It is a cabin constructed on an area of 4 sq.yds. of land, which by no stretch of imagination, could be a substitute for residential house occupied by the appellant in respect of which the ejectment application was filed by the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, and after going through the evidence recorded in the case, I am satisfied that the ejectment application was granted by the Court below on cogent reasons and the order is fully supported by the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the case of Messrs Eastern Express Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Tariq Hameed P L D 1986 Karachi 84, Mustaq Ali Jumani and another v. Mst. Amina Khatoon P L D 1986 Kar. 94, and Mst. Farukh Nisa v. Safdar Ahmad and 6 others P L D 1985 Kar. 639 to support his contention that the application filed by the respondent on the ground of personal and bona fide requirements suffered from lack of bona fide and necessary details.

I have gone through these cases, and I find no relevance between the facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and those involved in the present appeal. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, but, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I allow eight months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent on the condition that he shall continue to pay monthly rent regularly during this period, or deposit the same in Court, as directed by the Rent Controller. There will be no order as to costs.

H . B . T. /5018/ 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.