1999 PLP 2761 (MLD)

"(1) Whether the premises is required by the applicant for her bona fide personal use in good faith? (2) What should the decree be ?" I have heared Mr. S. Shamim Ahmed Riazi, Advocate for the appellant arid Mr. Muhammad Rauf, Advocate for the respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to law once a landlord or his attorney come forward and state on oath that the premises are required for his personal bona fide use the same is sufficient and should be accepted. He relied on the case of Messrs Kassam & Brothers v. Sharbat Khan (1992 MLD 1225). On the other hand Mr Muhammad Rauf contended that the appellant did not require the premises in good faith as no receipts were produced in regard to the sale of his shop/business in Sarafa Bazar and the income-tax papers filed by the attorney of the appellant do not disclose any losses suffered by him. His further contention was that the landlady has two vacant shops attached to bungalow in P.E.C.H.S. in her possession which she has not disclosed and as such she has not come to the Court with clean hands. I have considered the pleadings, arguments of both the counsel and case-law cited before me. The only ground taken in the rent application is personal bona fide use for herself and for the son who is jobless (para. 5 of the application) and as such it is to be seen whether the case is supported by evidence on record. As per record Shop No.N.P. 12/13 was sold in October, 1993; this was jointly owned by the mother, son and daughters and sale-deed was produced with affidavit-in- evidence. According to the attorney even the Shop No. N.P.12/6 wherein he had 50 per cent.' share was sold to pay of his debts. According to him after the sale of the two shops he has become jobless and needs the disputed premises to start business and support himself and the appellant. In cross-examination he confirmed the contents of the affidavit-in-evidence. However, he admitted that the disputed shop has not been mutated in the name of the appellant. He stated in his affidavit-in-evidene that the P.E.C.H.S. bungalow where they are residing is not commercial but is residential but in cross-examination he admitted that there is a shop attached to the bungalow which has been rented out. He further admitted that thee are two more commercial shops in the said property. The respondent in his affidavit-in-evidence denied the need of the appellant. According to him, he had paid Rs.45,000 as Pugree to the original owner, He further stated that the family settlement is a sham prepared to evict him and stated that the two shops in P.E.C.H.S. are lying vacant. He confirmed the contents of the affidavit-in-evidence. However, in cross-examination he showed his ignorance in regard to the two shops whether they are rented out or not. He denied that Muhammad Hanif is jobless as he is plying taxi through a drive. During arguments Mr. Shamim Ahmed Riazi, Advocate admitted that there are two ships in P.E.C.H.S. The entire evidence is silent to the fact if the two shops to P.E.C.H.S. are vacant or have been given on rent. Further, there is nothing on the record to show as to when the shop attached to the bungalow was given on rent. No doubt by now it is settled law that the statement of the landlord on oath that he requires the premises for his bona fide personal use is sufficient to pass an order for eviction when the landlord has withstood the test of cross-examination satisfactorily, as held in the case of Messrs M. Kassam & Brothers Sharbat Khan (1992 MLD 1225) but where the landlord has suppressed facts then circumstances change. Since subject property is not mutated in the name of the appellant to give her cover of law, and the fact that Muhammad Hanif has failed to prove that he is jobless as he is plying taxi through a driver and the very fact that B existence of shops with the bungalow was suppressed by the appellant the learned Rent Controller was right in deciding the Issue No.1 in negative as the appellant has failed to establish her case. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is no justification for interfering with the finding of the learned Rent Controller. Hence I uphold the same and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A-240/K Appeal dismissed.