1989 PLP 1176 (CLC)

It was further held that:‑ "The expression, 'requires in good faith' would mean that the landlady required the premises for her reasonable requirement or needs and that she was not seeking the eviction on pretext of requiring additional accommodation with oblique motive of realising some extraneous purposes. Mere wish, convenience, whim or fancy of landlord, held, would not be enough to show that the landlord required premises in good‑ faith". In Dr. Murtaza Hussain v. Muhammad Mustafa PLD 1986 Kar. 199, it was observed by this Court that:‑ "Bona fide personal need of landlord proof of, landlord, held, would have to prove bona fides regarding personal need. On proof of such bona fides, burden would then shift to tenant alleging mala fides of landlord to prove the same." In the case of Bhaledino v. Din Muhammad and 6 others 1986 CLC 395 it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court that:‑ "In the absence of any pre‑condition laid down by section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance non‑disclosure in the application that some other premises is in the occupation of the landlord will not be a bar to the maintainability of the application. " In the case of Arshad Umer v. Begum Nazarul Askari PLD 1985 SC 138 it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as follows : ‑ "We note that subsection (ii) of section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, provides that the Rent Controller can direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises if he is satisfied inter alia that the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of his children." On the other hand the following cases were relied upon by Mr. Azizul Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Samiullah v. Mst. Begum Jehan 1986 CLC 2628 wherein it was observed that:‑ "The burden was on the landlord to prove bona fides or good faith for personal requirement. The good faith is to be proved by clear and definite evidence which could inspire confidence." It was further observed that:‑ "The respondent's statement in her cross‑examination shows that her two sons were already doing business and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were going to start new business after having attained majority and for which reason the premises in question were required by the respondent." With utmost respect the above decision is distinguishable inasmuch as it is the case of Mst. Khairunisa appellant No.l that she has started the work of cutting and sewing after the death of her husband, and it was not suggested to her that she was carrying on. this work even before the death of her husband. (2)Izhar Hussain Naqvi v. Muhammad Sayeed 1986 CLC 1485 wherein it was observed in this Court that:‑ "It is an admitted position that the appellant's son is in U.S.A. It has been however stated that his family is in Pakistan. "The appellant has not given the details of the members of family members as his sons wife and children. This is a very vague statement, because if the wife has very young children it may be necessary for her to stay alone with them separately. Moreover, the wife of his son was not examined to establish the fact that she wants to reside separately from the appellant in some independent house. There is no conclusive and cogent evidence establishing the requirement of children of Mr. Haider Naqvi, who is residing outside Pakistan, and, therefore, it was not proved that the premises were required for the wife and children of C.R. Haider Naqvi. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. (3) In the case of Hussain Ali v. M/s. Noor Ali and others 1986 MLD 714; it was observed that:‑ "The burden to prove bona fide requirement of premises was on the landlord. The appellant has not explained the nature of his business and the manner how the existing shop is insufficient and cannot accommodate his business nor the appellant has stated in what manner he wants to expand his business and whether such expansion will be possible by acquiring 1 sq. ft. The appellant has also not stated whether his son is working as an associate, employee or partner in the business. Under these circumstances it was held that the appellant had failed to proved the personal bona fide requirement and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed." With utmost respect the above decision is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as in the present case, Mst. Khairunisa appellant No.l wants to start her own business of cutting and sewing clothes, which fact has not been disputed or denied by the respondent. Even there has been no cross‑examination on this point and, therefore, the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. From the evidence produced by the appellants and the admission made by the respondent in cross‑examination it is clear that out the three shops one big shop is in possession of the respondent while two small shops are in possession of two sons of the appellant No.l. However, as far as personal bona fide need of appellant No.l was concerned, it has not been disputed by the respondent inasmuch as neither it was denied in the written statement specifically nor the lady and her son Ghulam Mehdi were cross‑examined on this point except a question whether she holds any diploma. Every woman is presumed to know cutting and sewing unless proved otherwise. Even the respondent has not stated in his affidavit that the premises in question were not required by the appellant No.l for her personal bona fide use and, therefore, I am of the considered view that the appellants have been able to prove that the shop in question is required for personal bona fide use of appellant No. l and for expanding the business of appellant Ghulam Mehdi. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of Rent Controller, and allow ejectment application filed by the appellants with no order as to costs. However, I allow four months' time to the respondent to hand over vacant possession to the appellants, subject to the condition that he continues to deposit the future monthly rent regularly. If C the respondent fails to hand over vacant possession to the appellants after expiry of four months, the Rent Controller shall issue Writ of Ejectment if any execution application is filed before him, without issuing prior notice to the respondent. M.Y.H./K‑123???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.