2001 PLP 1176 (MLD)

(1) Whether the ejectment application is maintainable (2) Whether the premises is required by the applicant for her son bonafidely? (3) Whether the opponent has committed wilful default in payment of electric charges which is included in rent? (4) What should the order be? Respondent/landlady examined herself and her son Mehboob Khan; both have been subjected to cross‑examination. Whereas the appellant/tenant has examined him; Abdul Ghaffar, Saddullah Khan and Muhammad Usman and they have also been subjected to cross‑examination. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the evidence and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and decided Issues Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative whereas Issue No.3 was decided in negative and Issue No.4, the application of respondent/landlady was allowed and appellant/tenant was directed to vacate rented premises and deliver the physical possession of the premises to the respondent/landlady within 60 days. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant Mr. Abdul Hameed Bhopali has submitted that as far as the ground of default is concerned that has not been proved and now the question of personal bona fide use is to be proved by learned counsel for respondent/landlady and has contended that respondent/landlady has got total six shops and she has also filed two Rent Cases Nos.48 of 1995 and 49 of 1995 against the present appellant/tenant on the ground of default and against which such first rent appeals are also pending before this Court and so far the resppondent/landlady is .avoiding to accept the service in those first rent appeals. He has further submitted that this is 3rd application for qtectment against the present appellant/tenant vide Rent Case No. 516 of 1995 on the same grounds. According to him, the respondent/landlady has not come with clean hands. Learned counsel for the appellant/ tenant has contended with full force that before filing the present Rent Case No.516 of 1995, the respondent/landaldy let out Shop No.2 to Suleman, the another tenant which has been admitted by the son of respondent/landlady, namely, Mehboob Khan in cross‑examination. So also, this fact has been admitted by the respondent/landlady in her cross examination. He has also submitted that rent receipt No.1l dated 5‑4‑1996 and No.13 dated 6‑4‑1994 are regarding Shop No.2 let out to Suleman. According to him, the respondent/landlady has not come with clean hand as she has suppressed the material facts and according to him another shop has been vacated by tenant which has been let out by respondent/landlady to another tenant namely Suleman which she has admitted in her cross examination and the purpose of filing of the ejectment application against the appellant/tenant is nothing but to increase the rent and no case for personal bona fide need is made out by respondent/landlady. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on 1985 CLC 562, 1989 CLC 241‑247, 1990 CLC 1320: 1991 MLD 651: 1992 MLD 1685: 1997 CLC 1531; 1999 CLC 1273; 1994 SCMR 1900; 2000 CLC 90: 2000 CLC 1314; 1986 SCMR 594; 1999 MLD 2989; 1999 CLC 454 and 1999 CLC

266. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/landlady has drawn my attention on objections of the main appeal and has submitted that personal bona fide need has been proved as the son of respondent/landlady, namely Mehboob is doing his business in a rented premises; when asked, as to whether any witness of the locality has been examined by the learned counsel for respondent/landlady before the lower Court on the factum of personal use, the learned counsel for respondent/landaldy replied in negative. He has placed reliance 1996 SCMR 1178; 1992 MLD 1225; 2000 CLC 1756 and 2000 CLC 230 2000 CLC

997. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hameed Bhopali, learned counsel for the appellant/tenant and Mr. Zahid Hussain, learned counsel for respondent/landlady; have gone through the record and proceedings of the case; their affidavit‑in‑evidence and cross‑examination. The respondent/landlady in her cross‑examination has admitted that his son, namely Mehboob is doing business of welding. She has also admitted in her cross‑examination that Shop No.2 was‑let out to Nawabuddin who handed over the possession of the same to his nephew Suleman; she has also admitted in her cross‑examination that her son is not jobless. I have also examined the affidavit‑in‑evidence of Mehboob son of respondent/landlady and his cross‑examinatuion he has admitted in his cross‑examination that tenant of Shops Nos. t and 4 have paid 'Pagri' to his father; he has also admitted in his cross‑examination that Shakir is a tenant of Shop No. 1; he has also admitted in cross‑examination that Nawabuddin was previously tenant of Shop No. 2 and Iqbal is the tenant of Shop No. 3 and he is the tenant of Shop No.4. Admittedly, there are six Shops in the said premises and one of shops has been let out to one Nawabuddin who has handed over its possession to his nephew Suleman and in these circumstances, if there was any need for personal use, the respondent/landlady should have not rented out the Shop No.2 to Nawabuddin and have retained the same for personal use of her son. Admittedly, the respondent/landlady has filed two other Rent Cases and the question of personal bona fide use is not being proved and it is also very clear from the admission of Mehboob son of respondent/landlady that 'Pagri' has been received by them from other tenant and sole object of the respondent/landlady is nothing but to get increased the rent from the present appellant/tenant which is borne out from the record and the evidence. It is also an admitted position, that respondent/landlady is also in possession of other Shops and one of the Shops being Shop No. 2 has been let out and in view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent/landaldy has come out for personal bona fide use for her son with clean hand and the need of respondent/landlady is not appearing bona fide, therefore, no case for personal bona tide need is made out by the respondent/landlady. I am being also fortified by the cases cited by the learned counsel for appellant/tenant. The upshot of the above discussion is that the respondent/landlady has miserably failed to make out a case for ejectment against the appellant/tenant on personal bona fide use and accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 12‑8‑1996 passed by learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi Central, in Rent Case No.516 of' 1995 with no order as to costs. The above‑are the reasons of my short order dated 25‑1‑2001. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑86/K Appeal allowed.