1986 PLP 2628 (CLC)

S. Ishrat Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986. This appeal calls in question the order passed by the learned Vith Senior Civil Judge, Assistant Sessions Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 1‑8‑1984, ordering the appellant's eviction from the premises in question within two months from the date of the passing of the order. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellant was the respondent's tenant in respect of Shop No.139, situated in Co‑operative Market, Abdullah Haroon Road, Saddar, Karachi, on a monthly rent of Rs.200. The respondent filed application for eviction of the appellant from the said premises on three grounds. Firstly. it was alleged that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent although the period of default was not specified in the application. Secondly, it was alleged that the appellant had made alterations and additions in the shop. Lastly, it was alleged that the premises wet e required, in good faith, for personal use of the respondent's sons. The appellants filed written statement in which the averments made in the application were denied. The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence ordered the eviction of the appellant only on the ground of her personal requirement as the other grounds taken by the respondent failed to find favour with the learned Rent Controller. I have heard Mr. Syed Inayat Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Syed Ishrat Rizvi the learned counsel for the respondent. The contention of Mr. Syed Inayat Ali is, that the respondent has failed to establish 'good faith' as required by section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The contention of the learned counsel firstly, is, that according to the respondent's evidence before the Rent Controller, her sons were doing business of embroidery in their house which business they wanted to shift to the shop in question. The learned counsel has argued, that no reasons have been stated by the respondent for that and as such, the respondent has failed to establish that her needs are bona fide. The next contention of Mr. Syed Inayat Ali is, that the appellant was in possession of the shop since 1969 and on 18‑3‑1974 the respondent entered into a written agreement with the appellant giving fresh lease of five years to the appellant, which further shows that her needs were not bona fide. Mr. Syed Inayat Ali has taken me through the evidence adduced by the parties before the Rent Controller. The contentions raised do find support from the evidence. The respondent in her cross‑examination has clearly stated that her sons namely, Dilshad and Dildar are doing embroidery work in their house where they are taking orders for such work. No explanation has been given as to why the sons of the respondent intend to shift their business from their house to the shop in question. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the burden to` prove the bona fides or good faith is clearly on the landlord. Such burden, it appears, has not been discharged by the respondent in this case. Besides this, the respondent's witness namely Syed Imtiaz All, who was elder brother of the respondent, in his cross‑examination has stated that the sons of the respondent had been doing embroidery work in their house since about eight or nine years prior to his giving evidence in the Court. Mr. Syed Inayat Ali has pointed out that if such period is computed then according to the statement of the witness it can reasonably be inferred that the sons of the respondent were doing business at the time when the fresh lease agreement was executed by the respondent in 1974. Although the statement made by the respondent's witness fails to specify that the sons of the respondent were actually doing business at the time of signing of the fresh lease agreement but then at the same time it can reasonably be inferred that such business was started by them about the same time when the agreement was executed. In any case, the admission having come from the respondent's witness, in case of any doubt, the benefit thereof must go to the tenant. As against this, Mr. Rizvi has referred t6 para. 4 of the respondent's affidavit wherein she has stated that three out of her four sons had become major and as such she Wanted to put them in business for which the premises in question were required by her. Be that as it may, but the respondent's statement in her cross‑examination contradicts such stand as it clearly shows that her two sons namely, Dilshad and Dildar were already doing business and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were going to start new business after having attained majority and for which reason the premises in question were required by the respondent. Good faith has to be proved by clear and definite evidence which can inspire confidence. I am, therefore, of the view that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden to prove good faith or bona fides which very heavily rested on her shoulders and as such she is not entitled to any order of eviction in her favour. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. In view of the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.