1989 PLP 46 (CLC)

(2) Whether the applicant requires the premises in good faith for personal bona fide use of her son? (3) Whether the K.M.C. dues form part of the rent? If yes, whether the opponent has failed to pay the same and thus committed default in paying the rent due? (4) Whether the opponent has without the written consent of landlady used the premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out? (5) Whether the opponent has committed such acts as are likely to impair the material value and utility of the premises?" The Rent Controller decided issues Nos.l, 3, 4 and 5 against respondent /landlady but allowed the ejectment on issue No.2 for personal bona fide requirements of the respondent. No cross‑objection or appeal has been filed by the respondent. In rent case respondent stated that bungalow is required in good faith for the occupation of her son Tariq Nawaz who has started business at Karachi and settled down permanently. He has also stated that her son is residing in the rented house and that house does not suit him and rent is also exorbitant and except this bungalow the respondent neither owns nor is occupying any other building in Karachi. The appellant in his written statement stated that premises is not required by the respondent but in fact he wants vacant possession on monetary gain. The respondent examined her son Tariq Nawaz, who in his evidence has stated that he started business at Karachi and is living with his family for last about 5 years and he has no other property excepting the bungalow. He has stated that he is living in a rented house which is not sufficient for his family and rent whereof is exorbitant. He has stated that he comes from family of tribal Sardars, that guests keep coming to him all the year round particularly during the Haj days, and the accommodation in his rented house is meagre where he cannot accommodate them. He produced power of attorney and other documents. He also filed further affidavit‑in‑evidence on behalf of respondent. For the appellant Ghazanfar Hussain has been examined. He has stated that he is Managing Director of the Company and a tenant in respect of the premises. On issue of personal requirement he has stated that respondent does not require the case premises for her or for her son. He has also denied the allegation of the default and other grounds taken in the application. He has not examined any witness in his support. Mr. A. Fateh Memon, Advocate for the appellant, submitted that appellant took this premises in the year 1962 from Ali Hassan Mangi for commercial‑cum‑residential purposes. It is also contended by the learned counsel that personal requirement for business has not been proved by the respondent. Tariq Nawaz is living in the bungalow provided by his company though he (Tariq Nawaz) does not require the premises in good faith. He has referred cases reported in 1986 S C M R 1158, 1980 C L C 2429‑2455, P L D 1985 Kar. 714 and P L D 1986 Kar. 637‑

644. Mr. Farooq H. Naek appearing for the respondent submitted that Tariq Nawaz has been examined himself and he has proved his personal bona fide requirements. He has referred cases reported in P L D 1977 S C 442 and 1976 S C M R

52. Mr. Farooq H. Naik has also argued on the other issues which have been decided against the respondent. He has referred cases reported in 1982 C L C 2164, 1985 C L C 1429 and P L D 1973 S C 295 and submitted that party has right to argue the issues which have been decided against him. I, therefore, heard him on these issues. He submitted that there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. Therefore he has not argued on issue No.l. On personal bona fide requirements there is evidence of Tariq Nawaz, the son of respondent and on other side Ghazanfar Hussain for the appellant. Tariq Nawaz is the son of the respondent/landlady. He has on oath stated that he owns no other premises in the‑ city of Karachi and he is residing in the rented premises. The appellant has not denied this proposition nor there is any proof that respondent or her son own any other house in Karachi. The only ground taken by the appellant is that bungalow is being vacated on the ground of A monetary considerations. There is no allegation that enhanced rent was demanded by the respondent or he wants to let out the premises to some other organization etc. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Tariq Nawaz. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent has proved the case for personal bona fide requirements and Rent Controller has rightly allowed the rent case as he is living in the rented house and he has got the right to live in his ‑own i house when he has no other house of his own at Karachi. On this I also refer to a judgment of Supreme Court dated 19‑5‑1987 in Civil Appeal No.354/K of 1986. As regards the previous Rent case, Mr. Farooq H. Naik, stated that Rent Case No 3488/78 was filed under the Repealed Act, 1959. Therefore after Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and with the permission of the Rent Controller the case was withdrawn and another rent case under section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was filed on 10‑11‑1980. In support he produced certified copy dated 13‑12‑1979 of application filed in the earlier case and order whereby respondent was allowed to file fresh case. The Rent Controller by his order dated 17‑12‑1979 passed the following consent order:‑ "By consent the case is dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh case." The appellant has not produced documents contrary to this. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this fresh rent application is competent. Now I come to the arguments of Mr. Farooq H. Naik on the other issues. The issue No. 3 is in respect of the payment of K . M. C . Taxes etc. It is an admitted position that there is no written agreement with regard to the payment of the K.M.C. tax. Case of respondent is that appellant has failed to pay the K.M.C. tax for the years 1972, 1973, 1975 and 1976. On this Rent Controller has on facts as well as on law come to the conclusion that appellant was not liable to pay the charges and has not committed default. I may further add that this rent case was filed on 1980 whereas default is claimed from 1972, there was no reason for the respondent to remain silent 7/8 years and not file any rent case on the point of default. Rent Controller has rightly decided issue No.3 against the respondent/ landlady. Issue No.

4. It is an admitted position that appellant is and possession of the premises since 1962. He is using it for commercial. as well as residential purposes. This premises was rented out to appellant by previous owner and is being used for residential‑cum commerical purposes since 1962. Tharefore, this issue has rightly been decided in .negative against the respondent. There is no evidence that appellant has committed any act to reduce the value and utility of the premises. There is only word of the respondent and no documentary evidence has been produced. Landlady has not examined B any expert or any engineer to show that appellant has committed any act to impair the value or utility of the premises. The finding of the Rent Controller on this issue calls for no interference. Upshot of the above discussions is that Rent Controller has rightly decided all the issues on facts and law. His order calls for no interference on all the issues. The appeal having no merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H/S‑221/K Appeal dismissed.