1985 PLP 2552 (CLC)

The respondent filed an ejectment case against the appellant on the ground of his personal requirement. The relationship between the parties has a chequered history. The respondent alleged that he had started his business of sale of books under the name and style of Allied Book Centre as its sole proprietor, but as in 1973 he wanted to go to Dubai he appointed the appellant as his Sales Manager to run the Business. In 1980 the respondent came back and wanted to carry on business here and asked the appellant to leave the shop. The appellant then filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge for declaration and injunction that he is a tenant and that the respondent should be restrained from ejecting him, illegally. The respondent filed a suit for possession, rendition of accounts and mesne profits. The appellant raised plea in defence that he is a tenant and not an employee. The appellant also filed a Miscellaueous Application for deposit of rent. The respondent withdrew his suit and in the suit filed by the appellant stated that he would accept him as his tenant and will not eject him except in due course of law. Thereafter he filed application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant inter alia pleaded that he is in occupation of the shop from 1970 as sub-tenant as the shop belonged to one Malbari and the respondent was his tenant. According to appellant, the respondent got the allotment of shop in the year 1975. It was also stated that in 1970 the appellant purchased the firm of Allied Book Centre with all its assets, good-will and tenancy rights and the respondent had set up his business in Dubai and occasionally visited Pakistan to collect rent. It was also stated that he has paid the rent Rs.250 P.M. regularly. It was denied by him that the premises is bona fide required by the respondent. Mr. Suleman Kassam the learned counsel for appellant did not challenge the findings that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties obviously so because throughout in the pleadings and the statement by the appellant he has admitted the respondent as his landlord. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent has failed to establish that he requires the premises for his own use. In this regard the learned counsel contended that the respondent is running a business in Dubai, and further that his mere statement is not sufficient to establish the bona fide requirement. The learned counsel has referred to 1980 C L C 492 and 1984 C L C 2332 and 2418 where it was held that mere desire is not sufficient to establish the bona fide requirement. The respondent from the very beginning has been pressing the appellant to vacate the premises, as he requires it for his bona fide use and accupation. In his statement he has also stated that he told the appellant to vacate the premises as he had to leave the business at Dubai and wanted to establish the business of selling books and in Pakistan. This fact has been stated in the plaint also filed by him against the appellant for obtaining possession of the shop. The respondent therefore, from the first day till his evidence was recorded has consistently maintained in different proceedings as well as in the ejectment case, that he wants to continue and carry on business of selling books the appellant should vacate the shop. The appellant on the other hand seems to have taken shifting stands; he alleged to be the sub-tenant and that his signatures were obtained by the respondent on blank papers. He also stated that he has purchased the business, but no documentary evidence was produced. All these statements show that the appellant was trying to take all such grounds by which the proceedings could be thwarted. Mr. Suleman Kassam, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the respondent has stated in cross-examination that he is running his business in Dubai and has not explained why he wants to run business at Karachi he has failed to establish his bona fides. The respondent is a Pakistani who is the owner of the shop in dispute, wants to return back from a foreign country and carry on business over here and for that purpose he has been litigating at different forums from 1980. These facts taken together are sufficient to establish that he requires the premises for his bona fide use and occupation. Mr. K.B. Bhutto, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to 1980 S C M R 590 and 1981 S C M R 709 and contended that in view of the safeguard provided by section 15-A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, the question of proving the bona fide need is of no material value. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant relied on 1972 S C M R 437 and contended that in spite of protection the landlord must prove his case. In the face of legal position as it is, operating today the landlord must prove his bona fide requirement but the standard of proof may not be very strict as contemplated by the learned counsel for the appellant. If from the facts and circumstances a genuine requirement is spelt out, the bona fides cannot be doubted unless such facts are brought on record which militate against it. The safeguard provided by law ensures that if the landlord who has obtained possession of the premises for his bona fide use, relets it to some other person or does not use it personally within one year then he will not only be punished, but the tenant would be entitled to obtain the possession of the said premises. This safeguard protects the rights of tenant and also imposes a check on the landlord. In my view the respondent has sufficiently established his bona fide requirement which can be judged by looking not only to the statement of the parties but also the conduct of both the parties from the year 1980. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession to the respondent within two months. M.B.A. Eviction maintained.