1985 PLP 571 (MLD)

Appellant Mazhar Ali filed an application for eviction of the respondent, who is his tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent for the months of January 19.79 to March, 1979 and that he had made alterations in the shop without his permission and that the appellant required the premises for, his personal bona fide use. The tenancy was admitted by the respondent in the written statement but other averments were denied. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- "(1). Whether the opponent is a wilful defaulter? (2). Whether the applicant requires the disputed premises for his own personal bona fide use? (3). Whether the opponent has made alteration in the disputed premises? if so its effect? (4). What should the order be? However, all the issues were decided against the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the ground of default. He has confined his arguments to the bona fide requirement of the appellant, and not seriously challenged the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 3 also. The learned counsel has stated that the applicant requires the premises for his own use and, therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller on this score is erroneous. In the application the appellant has stated that the applicant is in urgent need of the shop for his own personal bona fide use. At the trial the applicant's son and attorney in his evidence has stated that the applicant requires the shop for his own use for display and sale of his own chemical products as the applicant has no suitable place for use as display centre and sales depot for his products. The learned Rent Controller has stated that the appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that the' applicant is dealing in chemical products and hell needs the shop for the same. This finding has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant and there is no evidence to contradict this finding. In the application the appellant has only stated that he requires the shop for his own use but at the trial he has improved his case and stated that it is required for the display of his products and even on that score there is no evidence. The appellant's attorney has admitted that they had got the vacant possession of shop No. 2 for their own occupation. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that another eviction application was filed by the appellant for the eviction of the tenement on the ground of personal requirement but in this application he has not mentioned that such an application has been moved by the appellant. It is also not stated that his bona fide need is for two shops and not for one shop. The learned counsel has stated that the appellant may retain the shop in question and give on rent the other shop; or his son may occupy the second shop. Under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance the landlord has to show that he requires in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. It is not the case of the appellant that he requires one shop for his son and the other for his own use. It is to be distinctly proved by the landlord about the use of the shop by himself or any of his children.. The statement at this stage that he may retain C one shop and the other may be given to his son or may be leased out to a tenant is sufficient to show that the appellant does not require the shop in good faith. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the' case of Muhammad Younis Malik v. District Judge Lahore etc. 1982 S C M R 834 where the District Judge referred to the choice of the Landlady and her preference in matter of selecting one out of many tenanted properties. The text of choice and suitability was not applied by the District Judge with reference to the vacant possession which was available with her. The authority is distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the present case.

3. For all the above reasons this appeal has no force. It stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A. A. Appeal dismissed.