1994 PLP 971 (SCMR)

WALL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Mrs. Fakhra Javed, landlady/petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18‑5‑1 92 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court as an Appellate Court under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance against the order dated 18‑9‑1990 passed by the Rent Controller, ordering eviction of the tenant Noor Ali, respondent herein, from Shop No.1, Building No.663‑C/2, Central Commercial Area, PECHS, Karachi, whereby the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and, in consequence, the application of the petitioner/landlady was dismissed. It was averred in the petition for eviction that the petitioner purchased the suit property alongwith other property from Mrs. Hasina Begum and soon thereafter served a legal notice dated 29‑4‑1986 on the tenant/respondent herein as well as one Moizur Rehman, a tenant of the adjoining Shop No.2 for vacation of the shops in their respective possession and handing over their possession to the petitioner. On the refusal of the tenants two separate applications for the eviction of the tenants were filed in the Court of Rent Controller, inter alia, on the ground of personal need. The learned Rent Controller allowed both the eviction petitions but on appeal the orders of the Rent Controller were set aside. The instant petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court regarding eviction of the respondent from suit Shop No.l. However, the petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court regarding Shop No.2 was allowed and the Appeal No.246‑K of 1991 was also heard and decided on 8‑7‑1992 (copy produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of the arguments) whereby the appeal was accepted, the judgment of the High Court set aside and tenant Moizur Rehman ordered to be evicted on the ground of bona fide personal need. We have heard Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. The perusal of the record shows that the suit shop and the adjoining one were purchased by the petitioner/landlady for her bona fide personal need and served notices on. the tenants for evicting them. In the grounds of both the eviction petitions the plea of bona fide personal need was taken. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment observed that the landlady has not taken any training in the business of garments or boutique nor is possessed of any certificate to the effect that she has experience in the same or ability to run the business. It has further been observed that her husband too, has no experience of the business of garments or boutique. In the judgment of this Court in the connected Appeal No.246‑K of 1991 it was held that the landlady/petitioner required the adjoining shop to run her own business of boutique /ready‑made garments for which she had obtained training and also funds. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether to start the business of garments and boutique actual training of the landlady in the business in question or possession of a certificate was a condition precedent for the eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need. AA./F‑278/S Leave granted.