1986 PLP 928 (MLD)

Mustafa Lakhani for Appellants. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1986. This first rent appeal has been filed by the tenant against the order, dated 23‑2‑1981 passed by the Rent Controller ordering ejectment of the tenant from the commercial premises located in Nazimabad Karachi. The ejectment application had been filed on two grounds, namely, personal requirement and that the building had been damaged on account of grinding of salt in the premises by the tenant. The deceased respondent, who died during the pendency of this rent appeal and his legal heirs were brought on record, and his wife, who is now one of the respondents, gave evidence in support of the ejectment application. One of the partners. of the appellants' firm appeared as a witness on behalf of the appellants. By the impugned order, dated 23‑2‑1981, ejectment application had been granted only on the ground of personal requirement. Being aggrieved, the present rent appeal has been filed. I have heard Mr. Mustafa Lakhani learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh learned counsel for the respondents.

2. It was submitted by Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, learned counsel for the appellants, that in the ejectment application, the deceased respondent had only mentioned that he required the premises in question for personal use but in the evidence the case was improved and a specific plea was taken that the premises were required for setting up an industrial home. It was then submitted that on evidence the case of ejectment on the ground of personal requirement had not been made out inasmuch as the evidence did not establish personal bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondents. According to the learned counsel, there were only bald statements made by the deceased respondent and his wife and it had not been brought on record as to whether they had adequate funds to start and run ah industrial home and that in any case there was open space available pt the back 'of the premises, which Jas admittedly in possession of the respondents, in which an industrial home could be conveniently carried on. In support of his contentions, learned counsel cited the following reported judgments. (i) Muhammad Azizullah v Abdul Ghaffar 1984 C L C 2837. (ii) Abdullah Khan v. Majeed P L D 1984 Kar.

178. In the earlier cited case, it was observed that the question of bona fide personal use and occupation of a landlord has to be decided by objective assessment of the evidence and facts brought on record and the mere desire or statement even on oath that the landlord wanted to carry on the business in disputed premises by itself is not sufficient to prove his bona fide requirement. In the other decision reported in P L D 1984 Kar. 178, it was observed that the personal requirement expressed by the landlord in the ejectment application was not the same when evidence was recorded and in evidence the landlord had made definite improvement when he alleged that he was a T.B. patient and that his wife was a heart‑patient.

3. In this case, evidence has come on record that the deceased respondent retired sometimes in 1975 and thereafter he was getting his pension and rent from the premises which is admittedly Rs.300 per month, and that he had a large family and in cross‑examination he had stated that he has seven children who are living with him and that the evidence of the wife of the respondent (Mat. Ashraf‑un‑Nissa) is to the effect that the rental income (i.e. Rs.300 per month) and the pension were not sufficient to sustain the family. It has also come on record, and this, is not controverted in the cross‑examination, that Mst. Ashraf‑un‑Nissa is not a Pardah‑observing lady, that she has experience of industrial home business having already worked in the industrial homes at Karachi and that she also possesses a certificate from the national Small Industries Corporation for doll‑making, copy of which certificate was filed. It was also stated by Mst. Ashraf‑un‑Nissa that they were not in occupation of any suitable premises for opening an industrial home for their livelihood. She also stated that she knew sewing and other such hands‑crafts. Such evidence has gone un-controverted; as there is hardly any cross‑examination on this point. On an objective assessment of the evidence, in my view, a correct finding has been reached by the Rent Controller that the premises are required bona fide by the respondents for establishing an industry home so as to earn livelihood for a big family of the respondents. The two authorities cited by the learned counsel lay down the principles, which have been stated earlier, but none of these principles support the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the fact and circumstances of this case, as observed earlier.

5. There is no merit in this appeal. F.R.A. No.165/81 is dismissed with costs. The appellants are, however, granted time till 30‑6‑1986 to vacate the premises subject, however, to payment/deposit of monthly rent, H.B.T Appeal dismissed