1988 PLP 1041 (MLD)

This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the said ordinance) against the order dated 30‑11‑1986 passed by the learned‑ III Senior. Civil Judge ‑and Rent Controller (West) Karachi, in Rent Case No.4419 of 1983, allowing the application of the respondent under section 15 of the Ordinance and ordering the appellant to vacate the shop premises and hand over the same to the respondent within 60 days from the said order.

2. Mr. Anwar Hasan Pasha learned counsel for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted that the learned Controller did not consider EX.4‑A, which is an Iqrarnama, whereby all disputes were settled between the parties. It, is further submitted that the said Iqrarnama acts as an estoppel against the respondent. It was further submitted by him that the respondent did not come to the Court with clean hands. Lastly, it was submitted that the learned Controller wrongly believed the evidence of the respondent on the question of bona fide need of his son. ,

3. The learned counsel has taken pains to read the entire Iqrarnama before me but I am afraid the submission is misplaced. The said Iqrarnama does not spell out an agreement by any stretch of imagination that the respondent will not take any action for eviction of the appellant, if it is permissible in law. It appears, as stated by the appellant in Para 2 of this written statement, that the respondent refused to accept the rent and even declined to receive the money orders. The appellant, therefore, started depositing rent in the Court. The respondent humiliated the appellant in different ways. He even disconnected the electric supply. The appellant reported the matter to tile Police and also to the Union Council, who advised the respondent to behave peacefully and not to take law in his own hands. Thus, the respondent oil 21‑2‑1979 compromised the disputes with the appellant through an agreement executed by both the parties. The relevant terms and conditions of the said agreement are as follows:‑

4. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that tile above agreement does not bar an action seeking eviction of the appellant in accordance with law. Learned counsel cited a number of decisions reported a Muhammad Saghir Ahmed v. Qurban Ali and others 1983 C L C 2127, Nisam Din v. Niamat Bibi and 3 others 1985 C L C 98, Karachi Municipal Corporation v. Moosa Madam and 4 others P L D 1972 Karachi 571 and the case of Mst. Rahmatan v. Muhammad P

1. D 1963 (W.P.) Lahore 368, on the question of estoppel. Besides that the facts given in these cases are quite distinguishable, there arises no question 3f the applicability of estoppel in the instant case. Hence the entire submission in this regard of the learned counsel for tile apps faxes is this‑placed and misconceived. It may further be added that the said agreement appears to have settled the complaint dated 27‑1‑1979 filed by the appellant with S.H.O., Joharabad Police Station, which has been placed on record by the appellant himself.

5. As regards the question of bona fide need of the appellant's son, it has been alleged by the respondent that the shop in question is requested by his son Arshad Iqbal. his fact Las been specifically stated in the application as well as in the affidavit filed in evidence by the respondent. The affidavit in evidence of the son for whom the premises is requested has also been filed and be has also been cross‑examined. It has been stated in the said evidence that than aid son Arshad Iqbal has been married about a year ago and he is to be established in business independently. The case of the appellant as put in t: c evidence is that the said Arshad Iqbal alongwith other son .& cunning the business of a Typewriting I Institute in the adjoining shop. which is bigger than the shop in question, and that the respondent wants to extend the business of typewriting Institute by annexing the shop in question to the other shop. The suggestion has been denied by the respondent and his son, and it has been specifically asserted that the son will establish his own business of General Store in the premises in question. "This assertion in the cross‑examination has not been challenged. In fact, there is no specific denial on the part of the appellant respondent's need. It is noticed that in reply to c. question as to the bona tide aced of the respondent's son it was' stated by the appellant himself in the cross‑examination that "I do not know whether the applicant requires the premises for Arshad Iqbal. They themselves must be knowing".

6. Learned counsel for the respondent placed his reliance on the cases of Amanullah Khan v. Hafiz Abdul Ghafoor P L D 1985 Karachi 7 and Hassan Khan v. Mrs. Munawar Begum P L D 1976 Karachi 832, which go to support the case of the respondent.

7. For the aforesaid reasons I find no justification to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Controller. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in view of the fact that it is a shop premises, I allow four months' time to the appellant to vacate and hand over its possession to the respondent within the aforesaid period of four months subject to depositing rent in terms of the order of the learned Rent Controller. M.Y.H./M‑488/K Appeal dismissed.