1998 PLP 1034 (CLC)

The appellant bank is landlord and applied for ejectment from the building normally known as Chaudhry Abdul Hameed Builnmg situated on Plot No.LR‑8/37‑E/111‑17‑54 Orangi Street, Usmanabad, Karachi for the ejectment of opponent who is a tenant of Shop No.6. The two grounds urged were default and the personal need. The personal need was expressed that the said shop will be used as godown for keeping the pledged goods with the appellant bank. The opponent filed the written statement and contested the case. However, the learned Rent Controller earlier granted ejectment application vide orders, dated 25‑1‑1987. On appeal the orders were reversed by Mr. Justice Salahuddin (as his lordship then was) vide judgment, dated 8‑10‑1989 and remanded the case. After the remand further evidence was led and after assessment of the evidence learned Rent Controller, Civil Judge, Karachi (South) vide impugned judgment, dated 26th October, 1993 dismissed the rent case.

2. The reasons prevailed with the learned Rent Controller were that the period of default was not specified and secondly that there are many godowns of the appellants and moreover in the cross‑examination the attorney of the appellant deposed "it is a fact that Allied Bank has called offers for selling the building in cases through an advertisement in the newspaper.

3. Assailing the impugned judgment Mr. M. Ahsan Sheikh learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that he is not contesting the issue of default but on the issue of personal need he has stated that in spite of the fact that there may be many godowns available/obtained on rent by the appellant yet the godowns are always the consistent need of the bank to keep the pledged good in such godowns. It has been further urged that the building is still in‑ the ownership of the bank. It has not been sold and mere offer of sate would not deprive the appellant from the possession of the premises owned by them. The offer of sale does not reflect mala fides on the part of the bank. His further contention was that the legislature has provided protection 'to the tenant by enacting section 15‑A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which reads as follows: 15‑A. Where the landlord who has obtained the possession of a building under section 14 or premises under clause (vii) of section 1‑D, relets the building or premises to any person other than the previous tenant or puts it to a use other than personal use within one year of such possession‑ (i) he shall be punishable with fine which shall not exceed one year's rent of the building or the premises, as the case may be, payable immediately before the possession was so obtained. . (ii) the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of the case may be, and the Controller shall make an order accordingly."

4. Respondents were served they engaged Mr. M.G. Dastagir, learned Advocate, who is being repeatedly called since morning but he is absent as such this Court is deprived of the benefit of his assistance.

5. I have considered pleas urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his assistance.

6. Once the landlord steps in the witness‑box deposes that the premises are required for the personal need of the landlord, such statement is made on oath and presents himself for cross‑examination, after such statement of the landlord which is unshaken in cross‑examination, it shall in the ordinary course deemed to be sufficient for ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of personal needs. The legislature has already taken note that thereafter (after ejectment) landlords may play mischief. In order to curb such tendency, the legislature has introduced section 15‑A in the legislation which is a safe containing section and provides the remedy as well as punishment to such landlords as well as restoration of possession of the tenant.

7. Even otherwise, mere invitation of offer to sell the building but not sold would not reflect the mala fides on the part of the landlord. This aspect of the case has been ignored by the Trial Court while dismissing the application.

8. Consequently on the issue of person bona fide need the finding of the Trial Court are reversed and the Rent Controller (sic) respondents shall vacate the premises by 31st August, 1997. If the premises are not vacated by them, the writ of possession will issue without notice. In the result the appeal is allowed and since the respondent are contesting the case, therefore, no order as to costs is passed. H.B.T./A‑168/K Appeal allowed.