1986 PLP 2674 (CLC)

M. Zahiruddin Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1986. This First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, (hereinafter to be referred to as Ordinance) against the order, dated 18th May, 1982 of VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby he dismissed the rent case of appellant, has been filed by appellant /landlady. The rent application was filed by appellant on 15‑11‑1979 under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground that appellant wants the premises for her two sons namely Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Asif to start business. The written statement was filed on behalf of respondent on 20‑1‑1980 in which it is stated that appellants' husband and sons are running a store in the name and style of "Arif and Brothers" at Sheedi Village Road, Karachi. He has also stated that the premises where appellants were doing business were acquired by K . M . C . but in lieu thereof, the K . M . C . provided alternate plot to them in Korangi.

2. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed one issue about personal bona fide use of appellant and her sons Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Asif.

3. The appellant in support of her case examined Muhammad Rauf Exh. 5, Muhammad Arif Exh. 6 and Muhammad Asif Exh.

7. Whereas respondent examined himself. One Sher Muhammad Exh. 10 also was examined by appellant. Muhammad Rauf husband and attorney of the appellant Exh. 5 stated that appellant purchased the entire building on Plot No. 122, Sheet LY‑13, Sheedi Village Lyari Quarters, Karachi in 1977 through sale‑deed. He has stated that appellant has large family consisting of 6 sons and one daughter and that he was previously running business of Hides and Skins on Plot No. 45, Sheet LY‑53, Lyari Quarters, Karachi and also a Cement Agency, but K.M.C. acquired the premises for hospital and his agency was cancelled. He got allotted an industrial plot from K.D.A. on payment. But it is lying vacant and he is not carrying any business there. He, further stated that he has started a business of general store in a rented premises and taken his two sons Amjad and Arif as partners. His evidence is that present business is not sufficient for them, and they want the premises indispute for his sons Arif and Asif. Muhammad Arif Exh. 6 and Muhammad Asif Exh. 7 have stated in their evidence that they both want to start separate business in the premises which are occupied by the respondent. Sher Muhammad Exh. 10 has stated that he has rented out the one shop to Asif and Rouf at the rate of Rs.900 per month.

4. Respondent Muhammad Hashim in his affidavit in evidence stated that he is a tenant in respect of the above said premises and doing business of Bakery since 1936 and he raised construction of the said shop and he is maintaining and repairing it from time to time. He has stated that appellant's premises were required by K . M. C . but in lieu thereof he has provided commercial plot in Korangi and they have re‑established their business there and also started a General Store, therefore, they do not require the premises bona fidely.

5. I have heard Mr. Zafar Hadi for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that appellant has no other property and there is no reason to disbelieve the witnesses of the appellant. He referred to the cases P L D 1980 S C 218; 1985 C L C 2094; 1985 C L C 2295; 1976 S C M R 52 and 1984 Kar.

124. On the other hand Mr. Zahiruddin Khan, for the respondent submitted that rent for this shop was enhanced with the consent of the appellant in the year 1979 and at that time he did not ask for the possession. He also filed civil suit on other grounds. Mr. Zahiruddin referred to the cases reported in P L D 1984 Pesh. 278, P L D 1985 Kar. 624 and 1980 C L C 604.

6. The case of the appellant is that disputed premises are required for her sons Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Asif. Muhammad Rouf attorney of the appellant has admitted in his evidence that respondent was paying Rs.60 per month but rent was increased to Rs.80 per month in the year 1979. It is relevant to mention here that the rent case was filed in 15th November, 1979. He has also admitted that had filed civil suit against the respondent in 1980 for making addition and alteration thereafter that respondent carried out the repairs. He has admitted that he got one plot of 1100 sq. yds. in Korangi and he has a General Store in Lea Markat. He stated that he was doing business of Hides and Skins in Rangiwara and left the same in the year 1974 and doing the same business in his own property which was demolished by the Government. He has stated that Asif is doing his business in a shop which he took on rent in December, 1980. Muhammad Arif in his cross examination stated that he is doing business in the name of "Arif General Store" since 1977 and disputed premises were purchased in the year 1977 and his father is also doing another job. He is partner in the Arif General Store and his brother Asif is doing business of Hides and Skins in Rangiwara where he goes early in the morning. Asif Exh. 7 stated in cross‑examination that his brother Arif has got cold drink agency and running General Store. He has admitted that he is going at 10 a. m. at another shop at Rangiwara and started the business of Hides and Skin there as discussed above is very clear that both the sons of the appellant Arif and Muhammad Asif are already in business. The husband of appellant who is her attorney has got industrial plot in Korangi. Not only this but they have got business of Hides and Skins at Rangiwara. This fact has also been accepted the witness of the appellant. On the other hand respondent is doing business of Bakery in the disputed premises since 1936. The rent of the premises was enhanced in the year 1979. The rent case has been filed in the same year. It is admitted by the attorney that civil suit was filed against, appellant. From all the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Rent Controller has rightly exercised discretion in favour of the respondent and dismissed the rent application. The appeal is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. H. B. T. Appeal dismissed.