1995 PLP 847 (MLD)

No finding on the point of default is given by Rent Controller, as no evidence was laid on that point, and that it was also not pressed. On the point of respondent's need for the premises for his personal bona fide use, finding was given in affirmative and ejectment application was allowed. Applicant was directed to hand over the vacant possession to the opponent within 60 days. Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that there are six shops owned by the respondent and his family out of which five are on rent. Two of these shops were constructed and rented out much after the suit shop was rented out to him. Appellant is the oldest tenant. He is asked to vacate his shop, when there are other two tenants to whom shops have been rented out later. He further argues that respondent do not need this shop for their personal bona fide use, as respondents runs business of Pan shop with his elder brother 1qbal. His other brother Usman Ghani is a minor school-going child. Fourth brother is a mentally retarded. They want this shop to be vacated as he filed a Civil Suit No.711 of 1991 against the respondent on the ground that he (respondent) had disconnected his (appellants) electricity. He further submitted that respondent has suppressed the fact in his application regarding six shops and has stated that he has only four shops. He has also not disclosed the nature of business to be carried out in the suit shop. He has not come with clean hands in the Court. Learned counsel has relied on 1984 CLC 755, 1987 MLD 1425, 1987 MLD 2092. Learned Advocate for the respondent has argued that due to large family respondent he and his brother Usman Ghani has to do some business, apart from this Pan shop runs by his brother Muhammad Iqbal. He further argued that it is the choice of the landlord to choose any of the premises owned by him for running his needs. He further argues that applicant has not concealed any facts. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 1992 MLD 235, 1991 SCMR 846, 1994 CLC 48 and 1993 SCMR

67. I have heard the learned counsel, perused the R&P and the order of the learned Rent Controller. It has been deposed by the respondent Muhammad Hussain in his deposition in the Court of Rent Controller that family of the respondents consisted on 9 adults and some children. His elder brother Muhammad Iqbal running Fan business whereas he and his brother Usman Ghani has no place to do their own business. He further deposed that he alongwith his brother Usman Ghani want to do some business in the suit plot to maintain the family. Same facts were deposed by Usman Ghani also. It has been deposed that the shop in question is the biggest shop and 'Is also corner one which is suitable for the business of the respondent. It has also come on the record that appellant has two other shop beside the disputed. Respondent's Advocate had placed reliance of the following case‑law. It has been held in the case of Nasir Khan and another v. Alauddin reported in 1992 MLD 2395 by my learned brother Abdul Rahim Kazi, J. that "landlords word if not rebutted would be sufficient with regard to requirements of the premises." It has been held in Manzoor‑ul‑Haq and others v. Akbar Ali reported in 1994 CLC 480 by ‑my learned brother Mamoon Kazi, J. that "selection of premises was a matter of choice for the landlord and mere fact that same shop has been let out earlier by the landlord was not sufficient to defeat his plea for personal use." It has been held in Agaria Amir v. Abdul Majeed reported in 1993 SCMR 67 by my Lords Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah that "landlord was not required to give fullest possible description of personal use of property in ejectment application, where he had clearly mentioned that he needed premises in question for his personal use." In view of above decisions the landlord has choice for selecting premises, and the fact that some shops he had earlier let out will not come in way, and also that he is not required to give fullest possible description of personal use of property, but he has to only mention that he needed the premises in question for his business. It has been clearly deposed that the respondent needs the disputed premises for his personal bona fide need to establish a business to support his large family. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance following case‑law:‑‑‑ Mst. Begum Jan v. Abdul Rasool reported in 1984 CLC

755. It has been held that "the landlord should come to the Court with clean hands, suppressing the material fact in the rent application filed on the ground of bona fide requirement puts the Court on guard and Court may in such cases appraise the evidence of landlady more cautiously or in suspicion as the landlady is capable of misleading Court." 1n Muhammad Siraj v. Muhammad Ayub reported in 1987 MLD 1425. It has been held that "landlord getting one shop vacated and not starting business in that shop his ejectment application rightly, rejected." In Ahmed Tanveer v. Hakeem Bakers reported in 1987 MLD 2092. It has been held that "landlord suppressing the fact that he was also in occupation of other business premises and that he was in service, the landlord has also not tried to establish that said other business premises were not suitable for his needs. Held if landlord's conduct was such that he did not take Rent Controller into confidence nor approach the Court with clean hands and when guilty of suppression of facts, some would reflect and recoil on his bona fides and good faith for establishing his personal need." All these citations quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant has no bearing on this case as the respondent had not suppressed any material fact and has come to the Court with clean hands. The Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance provides safeguard against the misuse of the premises vacated for personal bona fide use. Section 15‑A of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance provides that if the vacated premises is related to any other person except the previous tenant, then landlord can be punished for a fine not exceeding one year rent and also that previous tenants who were evicted will be put into possession of the premises. In view of the safeguard landlord demands, for vacating the premises for personal bona fide need only if the need is genuine. I am of the view that the respondent needs the disputed premises for his personal bona fide use for running his business. I see no reason to interfere with the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit plot to the respondent within 60 days of the passing of this judgment. H.B.T./S‑1102/K Appeal dismissed.