1988 PLP 1833 (CLC)

(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 15(2)(vii)‑‑Personal requirement‑‑Personal requirement should be bona fide and. in good faith‑‑Ejectment application should be refused if landlord merely required accommodation and his need was tainted with mala fides‑‑Neither mere promise by tenant to vacate nor a mere statement of landlord would establish that landlord required premises bona fide and in good faith. K.M. Nadeem for Appellant. M. Safdar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th `lay, 1988. The respondent was living in the disputed premises which he vacated and under an agreement of tenancy dated 15‑1‑1985 rented it out to the appellant. The tenancy was for a period of 11 months. The respondent served a notice dated 17‑1‑1987 stating that the agreement of tenancy has expired, that the appellant is a defaulter in payment of rent and that the premises is required by the respondent for his personal use. As the premises was not vacated the respondent filed an application for ejectment on 11‑2‑1988 on the ground that the respondent is a defaulter in payment of rent and further that the respondent is residing in a rented premises and he wants the disputed premises for his bona fide personal requirement. The appellant denied the claim of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller noted that issue No.l relating to default was not pressed by the respondent. So far the other issue relating to bona fide personal requirement is concerned the finding was given in the affirmative and the ejectment application was allowed. After the appeal was filed interim stay had been granted but the application was dismissed for non‑prosecution and the respondent executed the ejectment order and obtained possession of the disputed premises. Appellant has filed F. R. A . 1110 of 1987 against the order of ejectment and F . R. A . 384/ 88 against the order of execution whereby possession has been obtained by the respondent. Both these appeals will be disposed of by this judgment. The only point for consideration is whether the premises in dispute was required by the respondent bona fide for his personal use. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondent had been residing in the premises before he let out the same to the appellant and entered into an agreement of tenancy for 11 months. Therefore, at the time when the premises was vacated by him, he was not in need of the same because he left the premises and has rented it out to the appellant. Immediately on the expiry of the tenancy agreement a notice was served as stated earlier and amongst other grounds claim for bona fide personal requirement was also pressed. In the ejectment application it has been stated that the respondent is residing in a rented flat and requires the premises for his own use. Mr. K.M. Nadeem the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case bona fide personal requirement has not been established. From the facts it is clear that the respondent had first vacated the premises to rent it out one year before the ejectment application was filed. In that process he not only left the disputed premises and rented it to the appellant, but he chose to live in a rented flat. Therefore, these facts were well known to the respondent that after renting out the premises he will be living in a rented house. No new facts have been stated to prove the need, and requirement which has compelled the respondent to occupy his own house. These grounds pressed in the ejectment application were known to the respondent even at the time when disputed house was rented out. The mere statement that he requires the premises now is not sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement. Under law the requirement should be bona fide. It should be in good faith. If the landlord merely requires a premises, which is tainted with mala fides, ejectment will not be granted. The learned Rent Controller was impressed by the fact that the appellant had promised to vacate the premises but mere promise in such compelling circumstances as disclosed by the appellant cannot be made a ground for ejectment, nor such a statement establishes that the respondent requires the premises bona fide or in good faith. Here what the respondent has done is, that with his own choice vacated the premises and at his own sweat will he wants to occupy the same within a short span of only one year and no explanation has been offered to justify such demand. The rights of the landlord are sufficiently restricted for claiming ejectment of a tenant and unless he brings the case within the four corners of section 15 no ejectment can be granted. Considering the present facts and circumstances of the case, in my view bona fide requirement of the respondent has not been established. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Controller, allow this appeal. The appellant has been ejected during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, she is entitled to restitution of possession which should be restored to her. The respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession to the appellant within two weeks failing which writ of possession shall be issued without further notice 'to him. Both the appeals are allowed and stand disposed of by this order. M.Y.H. /N‑111/K Appeal allowed.