1986 PLP 1636 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 29th May. 19`6 This is an appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 20th October, 1983 ordering the ejectment of the tenant from the premises in this appeal on the ground of personal need of the landlord. The appellant is occupying this premises for a long time. The premises originally were let out for commercial purposes but the appellant also used a portion for residential purposes. The respondent /landlord thereupon filed an ejectment application against the appellant on 10‑5‑1979 on two grounds:‑ (1) That the tenant had converted the premises into residential from commercial. (2) That the premises were in good faith required by the respondent/ landlord for the use of his son.

2. The opponent filed a written statement and denied the allegations. The case proceeded before the learned Rent Controller. The applicant and his son Hanif Qadir for whose benefit the personal need was urged, filed affidavit‑in‑evidence and both of them were cross‑examined. The opponent also filed an affidavit and he was also cross‑examined. On this evidence the learned Rent Controller, after hearing the arguments of both the parties passed his order. In the impugned order the learned Rent Controller has held that the change of user of tenancy is not proved. This therefore, goes off. The only ground that requires consideration ground of personal need of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller has held that the landlord has successfully established his case on this issue and hence the ejectment order. The landlord's version is that his son Abdul Qadir has passed a course of air‑conditioning and refrigeration and he is a diploma‑holder and he would like to start his own business of air‑conditioning and refrigeration in the shop.

3. In this appeal the findings in the order of the Rent Controller have been challenged. Mr. Zafar Aziz Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellant .has contended before me that no Air‑conditioning or Refrigeration diploma was produced in the case and as such this point should be held in his favour as the story of the appellant /landlord for starting their Air‑conditioning and Refrigeration business was not proved. In my opinion there is no such requirement that even such broad fact which has been alleged and which has not been specifically) denied should be held to be not proved merely because a diploma in Air‑conditioning and Refrigeration was not placed on the record before the Rent Controller. Moreover, the appellant in his cross‑examination has not specifically denied this fact. In his cross he was said:‑ "I know Hanif son of applicant. I dont know d' he is jobless. I do'nt know if Hanif is Diploma Holder in electronics.

9. The next contention raised by the learned counsel was that sometime back another shop adjacent to the shop in dispute which was occupied by one Ibrahim had fallen vacant but the landlord did not utilise this shop. The answer to this argument is provided in the cross‑examination of the son Hanif Qadir. It is to this effect.:‑ "That the adjacent shop to the disputed premises was vacated by the tenant but I do not remember as to when shop was vacated. At that time I was not having Diploma Certificate."

5. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced lengthy arguments making allegation against the respondent. But these arguments dealt only with the aforementioned two points.

6. The balance of authority is that the statement of the landlord showing personal need should prima facie be a good ground for ejectmen of the tenant unless the tenant succeeds in creating doubts in the story of personal need either by cross‑examining the landlord or by producing evidence in rebuttal. As owner of the property it is the right of the landlord to use his property in the manner he chooses. The learned counsel without co‑relating the facts of the present case with the large number of cases which he has in his mind tried to argue that the landlord has not discharged his burden. He particularly referred to a case in which it was held that repeated change of tenants by the landlord would create adverse impression about the intention of the landlord. The facts of that case are that the landlord had been changing tenants, obtaining possession of the premises on the ground of personal need in a number of cases. In the present case there is no such change of tenancy of and on. Only one tenant is stated to have surrendered his tenancy and that too several years before the son of the landlord had qualified himself as a Electronic Diploma‑holder. No other point was argued. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. This judgment was announced in open Court after hearing the appellants without calling upon the respondent. H.B.T. ‑‑‑‑‑ Appeal dismissed.