1984 PLP 3525 (CLC)

This Ilnd Appeal was argued by the learned counsel Mr. Fazal Bhoy on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani Advocate made submissions on behalf of the respondents. The impugned order is dated 27th February, 1980, passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi.

2. The facts are that the two respondents Mst. Husaina Bai and Saifuddin were the owners of the garage on Plot No. 9/18 Serai Quarters Aram Bagh, Karachi and they filed a Rent Application on the grounds of default and personal bona fide use. The appellant was their tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.30 per month. The allegation was also that the tenant/ appellant was persistent defaulter in payment of rent and that he has not paid the rent for 13 months from July, 1973. The premises were bona fidely required for respondent No.2 i.e. the son of the respondent No.1 as well as for his other children as they wanted to start business in the said premises. The appellant is a. big businessman and landlord and owner of the large number of buildings in Karachi, The appellant in his written statement has stated that the premises were purely for garage purposes and has always been used for this purpose. It is capable of being used for shop purposes. He has denied the allegation of default as he says that there was practice in between the parties that the rent was being recovered on yearly basis.

3. On the pleadings of the parties the following five issues were framed:‑ (1) Whether the rent of the premises in suit for practice between the parties was paid on yearly basis ? If so what is its effect? (2) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of monthly rent? (3) Whether the suit premises is a garage and as such not fit for use as shop? (4) Whether the applicants reasonably and in good faith need the suit premises for their own use as shop? (5) What should the order be?

4. The issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the appellant but the issue No.4 on the personal bona fide requirement has been decided against the appellant. Learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 10th January, 1978 had allowed the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within a period of one month. Thereafter the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karachi. The appeal was dismissed by the A.D.J. by his well‑reasoned judgment, dated 27th February, 1980.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant made submission that the garage was not capable of running business or opening a shop for paper business. The contentions are purely factual in nature and the lower Courts both have come to the conclusion that the premises in question i.e. the garage could be used as a shop and much more as a shop for paper business. There is hardly any point, to controvert the bona fides of the respondents. The respondent/ landlord Saifuddin has given the full details of factual aspects which have compelled him and his grown‑up sons to run the business. The respondent Saifuddin is living a retired life and he states that his three sons who are aged 21, 22 and 24 years, would run the business. The submission made by the learned counsel for A the appellant is that the premises in question are not required by the respondents for their personal bona fide need.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred me to 1972 S C M R 437 and 1976 S C M R

52. In the second authority referred above their Lordships have observed that the personal need includes the need of those dependants such as a disabled brother of the landlord. This authority does not help the learned counsel. So also the authority 1972 S C M R 437, wherein it was observed that subsection (4) of the section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was enacted in favour of the tenant constituting a solitary check to restrain landlord from prosecuting ejectment proceedings on the basis of his bona fide requirement. At any rate the learned counsel for the appellant has not impressed me on the face of the concurrent findings of both the lower Courts. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on P L D 1975 Lah.

308. The authority lays down that if landlord asserted that he and his sons need a particular premises for their personal use and it is also proved on record that they are not occupying in the same urban area another building for purpose of business suitable for their need, then the question with regard to bona fide will have to be determined in context of provision contained in S.13(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This authority does not help the appel lant in any way.

7. Next it is contended that the respondents have few other shops also in the same building. From the authority 1980 S C M R 2 following observation is quoted which is relevant to the point:‑ "He submitted that the landlord had few other shops also in the same locality and in the circumstances there was no justification to order the eviction of his client from the shop presently in dispute. The contention has no merits. The shops to which reference B is made were all occupied by other tenants which showed that the landlords were justified in seeking eviction from the present shop for their personal requirement."

8. Overall this appeal has no force in view of the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Two months time is granted for the vacant possession to be delivered peacefully to the respondents/ landlords. M.A.K. ‑‑‑‑‑ Appeal dismissed.