Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeals Nos. 299 and 122 of 1985 (HYD), heard on 10th March, 1987.

‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑Bona fide personal requirement of son of landlord‑ Proof of‑‑Tenant's plea that son of landlord being a student, ground of personal requirement for such son of landlord was mala fide, repelled‑‑Production of certificate that landlord's son had discontinued his studies' and admission by tenant's son in evidence, before Court, that landlord's son was carrying on business on cabin, held, proved personal bona fide requirement of landlord's son‑‑Fact that disputed shop was already in possession of landlord's son, possession of which he had succeeded in obtaining in earlier ex parte proceedings and that he was carrying on handicraft work thereon, further proved personal need of landlord's son‑‑Requirement of landlord being bona fide, High Court declined to interfere with order of ejectment of Rent Controller.

Abdul Majid v. Maqbool Ahmed 1982 C L C 1889 ref.

Safdar Hussain for Appellant.

Hassan Mehmood Baig for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 10th March, 1987.

This appeal is directed against the 'order of Rent Controller Hyderabad whereby he ordered the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the disputed shop to the respondent.

2. The respondent is owner of shop C.S. No. D/2465 Pakha Pir Chari, Reshmam Gali, Hyderabad which was on rent with the appellant w.e.f. 1‑1‑1972. In the beginning the rent was fixed at Rs.400 per month but subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.500 p.m. An application for ejectment has been made only on the ground of requirement of this shop in good faith for occupation and use of sons of the applicant by names Zubair Iqbal and Amir lqbal.

3. Application was contested by the appellant who admitted the relationship of landlord and tenancy between the parties as well as the rate of rent. He only disputed the bona' fides of the respondent and submitted that the case was filed in order to pressurize the appellant to accede to the unlawful demand of the respondent to enhance the rent.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the only issue that came before the learned Controller related to the bona fide requirement of the shop for personal use of two sons of the respondent. The issue was answered in favour of the respondent by the learned Controller after taking into consideration the evidence that was led by the parties.

5. I have heard Mr. Safdar Hussain for the appellant and Mr. Hassan Mehmood Baig for the respondent and had the benefit going through the record with the assistance of both the counsels. The respondent has examined her husband and attorney Mr. Iqbal Jafferi a senior Advocate of Hyderabad bar and his son Zubair Iqbal for whom the shop is principally required. As against this the appellant has examined his son Abdul Rashid and his son‑in‑law Farooq Ahmed. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant was that Zubair Iqbal son of the respondent for whom the shop was said to be required was a student in 1st year Arts and was not expected to leave his studies and to run business in that shop. This according to him was a circumstance which would militate against the bona fide of the respondent.

6. Mr. Baig who appeared for the respondent submitted that it was there on the record that Zubair Iqbal who was the elder brother was still in 1st year Arts while his younger brother Amir Iqbal had reached B‑Com. and has actually passed the same. This in itself would show that Zubair Iqbal was indifferent in the pursuit of his' studies and therefore, his parents had decided to put him in business. Apart from that Zubair Iqbal was a student of City Arts College and Court can take judicial notice of the fact that same was an evening college and, therefore, Zubair Iqbal had sufficient time during the day to run the business. Apart from that a certificate has been produced to show that Zubair Iqbal had already disconnected his studies and his name had been removed from the rolls of the college for non‑payment of fees. It was also pointed out that the appellant's son had admitted that the children of the respondent were carrying on business on a cabin and were not paying rent to anybody. Finally it may also be pointed out that the shop is now in possession of the respondent which he had succeeded in getting through the Court in July 1986 when the case disposed of in ex parte. It is an admitted position that Zubair Iqbal is carrying on handicraft business on the said shop since then. The appellant's counsel has also admitted it though he has stated that the business is being carried out only to make a show of bona fides and is' not being earnestly persued.

7. The above circumstances clearly pointed out in the direction of the fact that the requirement of the respondent of the shop for the bona fide use of his son Zubair lqbal was bona fide. Reliance, was also placed before me on the case of Abdul Majid v. Maqbool, Ahmed reported in 1982 C L C 1889 where Ali Nawaz Budhani, J of this Court agreed with the lower Courts that the bona fides of the requirement of the shop were proved and did not agree with the contention that the boy for whom the shop was said to be required was purusing medical studies and, therefore, was not expected to start Kiriana shop.

8. In this view of the matter I am satisfied that the requirement of the shop by the respondent for her son Zubair Iqbal is bona fide and, therefore, I do not find any justification for interfering with the order of ejectment passed by the learned Controller. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

A. A. /A‑79/ 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.