1999 PLP 1014 (MLD)

3. On 12-7-1988 the landlord Syed Rahim Shah filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of the Rent Controller for the ejectment of tenant Haji Qasim on two grounds. First ground was default in payment of rent and the second ground was personal bona fide use by the son of the landlord.

4. It was pleaded that the rent upto the month of June, 1986 was paid and thereafter the tenant had failed to pay the rent to the landlord. It was further contended that the landlord had a large family and although he was already having similar tenements bearing Nos. 3, 4 and 5, situated within the same compound, in his personal use, but the members of his family were 15 in number. (He had 5 sons, 3 daughters and an elder brother in. his family). The landlord also claimed that one of his sons Syed Gul Hassan Shah was a married person having three children and he was occupying tenement No. 5 and that the remaining accommodation of tenement Nos. 3 and 4 was insufficient for them as the other sons of the landlord were of marriage-able age and two of them had to marry in near future and, therefore, they required tenement No. 7 for the personal use and occupation of the landlord and his sons.

5. In his written-statement, the tenant Haji Qasim pleaded that the rent upto the month of June, 1986 was paid, the receipts for the same were also issued. Thereafter, the landlord had refused to issue receipt for the rent, and thus considering that the landlord had refused to accept the same, he had sent the same by money-order, which was also not accepted and consequently he started depositing the rent in a miscellaneous rent case. The tenant also disputed the personal bona fide need of the landlord.

6. From the side of the landlord the evidence of the landlord Syed Rahim Shah and his son Abdul Wahab Shah was led, while the tenant Haji Qasim and his son Abdul Ghani were examined in defence.

7. The learned Rent Controller framed the following points for determination:- "(i) Whether the opponent committed default in payment of rent from June, 1986 to 30-6-1988? (ii) Whether the applicant (landlord) required the premises for personal bona fide use in good faith? (iii) What should the order be?"

8. In the assessment of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord had proved the default as well as his personal bona fide need to occupy the premises and, therefore, he allowed the application and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises in a period of one month.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant while arguing this appeal disputed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on both the grounds i.e. default as well as personal bona fide need. Learned counsel for the landlord supported the judgment of the Rent Controller and reiterated that both the grounds have been proved from the evidence on record and, therefore, the order of the Rent Controller should be maintained.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the statement of the landlord and his son in respect of their personal bona fide need should not be believed because the landlord made a false statement in respect of the default and on this ground he relied on 1984 CLC

755. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was the landlord had tried to mislead the Rent Controller by taking a false plea of default and had also incorrectly stated that the tenant had kept the premises locked and was not using the same and since these pleas are false and purfoasely taken to mislead the learned Rent Controller, therefore, the landlord was not entitled for acceptance of his plea of personal bona fide requirement as he had not come to the Court with clean hands and that he had suppressed material facts. Learned counsel for the appellant's reliance on the case of Mst. Begum Jan v. Abdul Rasool, reported in 1984 CLC 755 does not help him in my humble view, as the tenant had not proved the fact that the landlord had refused to accept the rent from him and, therefore, he had deposited the same in a miscellaneous rent case, and that the landlord having such knowledge had made a false statement. Even otherwise, the rule laid down in the above reported case is to the effect that if a misstatement is made in the rent application with a deliberate intention of misleading the Court in respect of the relevant factors, the same may be taken to be a mala fide act. But in the present case a plea of default had been taken, which had been proved before the Rent Controller. The contention of the tenant that landlord had refused to receive the rent from him and, therefore, he had sent the same through money order should have been proved by evidence and only thereafter, if such proof was available it was open to the tenant to claim that the landlord had made a misstatement with mala fide intention. The tenant had failed to prove the fact that landlord had refused to accept the rent from him, as he did not lead any independent evidence. Not only this, but the refusal on the part of the landlord to accept the money-order, was also not proved by producing evidence. The same could only be proved by examining the postman who has not been examined by the tenant. Under the circumstances, I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the landlord had come to the Court not with clean hands and that he had taken a mala fide plea.

11. I find that the tenant had not been successful in disproving the fact of personal bona fide need of the landlord, which was proved from the statement of the landlord himself and his son. There is no dispute that the landlord had large family including the grown up son by name Abdul Wahab Shah. Abdul Wahab Shah himself was examined. He had asserted that the other accommodation in possession of the family was neither suitable nor sufficient for their requirement and, therefore, his assertion that he required the tenement No.7 for his personal use is not devoid of truth. The learned counsel for the appellant had not been able to show any cogent reasons for disbelieving the landlord and his son, on the point of their personal need. Besides, there is no evidence worth consideration from the side of tenant which rebut the contention of the landlord, or may render his evidence untrue.

12. Taking into account all the above circumstances, I do not find that the Rent Controller had violated any principles of appreciation of evidence in coming to the conclusion on the point of personal bona fide need of the landlord, although on the point of default it could be said that the tenant may have committed the same technically, as he had been depositing the rent in miscellaneous rent case. For that also the tenant had to prove refusal on the part of the landlord which required that evidence of the postman. The postman had not been examined by the tenant. Therefore, I do not find reasons to take any exception with the order of the Rent Controller, ordering ejectment of the tenant. Consequently I find no force in this appeal. I maintain the order of the Rent Controller and dismiss this appeal with costs. However, the tenant is allowed two months time from the date of this order for handing over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. C.M.A./Q.12/K Ejectment upheld.