1993 PLP 1707 (MLD)

The appellant and the respondent filed their affidavits in evidence in the lower Court. None of them produced any other witness. The rent case was ultimately dismissed by the learned Lower Court. I have heard Mr. S.M. Jamil Raza Zaidi, Advocate for the appellant, as also Syed Ali Ahmad Tariq, Advocate for the respondent. I have also perused evidence recorded by the learned Lower Court. At the outset it may be mentioned that the affidavit in evidence filed by the appellant to the lower Court is inconsistent with the main ejectment application. It may be noted that the details of the proposed business and the names of the sons of the appellant do not find place in the main ejectment application. It appears that at the time of filing the ejectment application the appellant did not explain as to what kind of business was to be started in the disputed shop, and which of the sons was to start that business. Admittedly the appellant has been already running Poultry business with the help of his son in a shop already in his possession in the same premises. It appears that in the affidavit in evidence the insertion of the Poultry business and the name of the son has been made as an afterthought. The most important point which goes against the appellant is that he has categorically stated before the lower Court that he was capable of accommodating the respondent in another shop within the same premises and he had extended that offer to the respondent, but the latter did not agree to that proposal. In other words it means that the appellant can accommodate his son in the shop which was alternatively offered to the respondent. Under the circumstances the bona fides of the alleged need becomes doubtful and it appears that the shop in dispute is not required in good faith. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the shop in dispute was more spacious and was better location-wise than the other shops. But his argument is not supported by the evidence on record as no witness has been examined in support of the affidavit in evidence of the appellant. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Hanif and another v. The State 1992 M L D 314, and Mukhtar Hussain v. Mehar Elahi and 2 others 1992 M L D 318, but the aforesaid authorities are distinguishable as they apply only to those cases where the bona fides and the good faith have been established beyond any doubt. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that even before the appellant had filed an ejectment case against the respondent in respect of the same shop but the same stood dismissed. He further submitted that the present case was also filed with a view to compel the respondent to vacate the disputed shop. He placed. reliance on 1984 C L C 2837 whereby it is held as under:‑‑ "(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ S.13‑‑‑Bona fide personal use and occupation‑‑‑Question to be decided by objective assessment of evidence and facts brought on record‑‑‑Mere desire or statement even on oath that landlord wanted to carry on business in disputed premises, by itself not sufficient to prove his bona fide requirement. (b) West. Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ S.13‑‑‑Ejectment‑‑‑Bona fide personal requirement‑‑‑Landlord to submit facts necessary to prove that he required premises for his personal use‑‑‑Presumption that since landlord retired, he wanted shop bona fide for his personal use held, was not acceptable. (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ S.13‑‑‑Ejectment‑‑‑Landlord entering in agreement with tenant and declaring therein that under no circumstances he will demand for eviction of shop‑‑‑Such condition, held, could be proved by tenant provided he continued to discharge his obligations under agreement. (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ S.13‑‑‑Personal requirement‑‑‑Landlord by agreement with tenant parting away his personal requirement of premises, held, could not be allowed to press this ground for ejectment ‑‑‑Where landlord knew or could visualise his need and personal right under Rent Ordinance but agreed not to press it and waived same for valuable consideration he was not entitled to apply for ejectment on such ground during currency of agreement." Perusal of the above authorities indicates that the bona fide personal need in good faith is to be established by producing strong evidence, and it is not sufficient to merely allege the aforesaid need in the ejectment application. In view of the above discussion I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, and the present appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to cost. I have dismissed the above appeal by a short order, dated 30‑9‑1992 and these are the reasons for the same. Appeal dismissed.