1986 PLP 1426 (MLD)

The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:‑ (1) Whether the opponent is defaulter, if so its effect? (2) Whether the opponent obtained the possession from the tenant Fazal Bhai who was the tenant of the applicant? (3) Whether the applicant wants the shop for his bona fide use? (4) Whether the last receipt in possession of the opponent is forged one, if so, its effect? (5) Whether the opponent is liable to be ejected from the shop? (6) What should the decree be? The learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence produced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, decided issue No.1 in the negative, Issue No.2 as not proved and Issue No.3 in the affirmative and allowed the ejectment application on the ground of bona fide use only, vide his order, dated 9‑12‑1980. The appellant being aggrieved by order, dated 9‑12‑1980 of the Xth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, has preferred this First Appeal, on the ground mentioned in the Memo of Appeal. Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent has not proved bona fide use. The respondent has chosen to remain absent despite service of notice by substituted service. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent has not proved bona fide requirement. The respondent stated in the application that he is low paid pensioner and wished to start the business in the disputed premises and as such he wanted the same for his personal bona fide use. The averment in the ejectment application has been fully supported in respondent's deposition and nothing has been brought out in cross‑examination which could show that claim of personal use for himself is to be false or is based on wrong statement. It is well‑settled legal position that the assertion of the landlord on oath as to requirement of the premises for his personal use is to be accepted if constitute with his averment in his application and not shaken in cross‑examination or disproved in rebuttal. The evidence of the respondent in the instant case fulfilled the standard laid down in the case of Hussain Khan v. Mst. Munawar Begum P L. D 1976 Kar.

832. After going through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the order of the learned Rent Controller, I am fully satisfied that the learned Rent Controller has rightly granted ejectment of the appellant. Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani the learned counsel for the appellant has cited case of Barkat Ali v . Sughran and others P L D 1980 Kar. 223 in support of his contention. The facts of the case are distinguishable from the case as the respondent stated that he has undertaken so many business including the business of yarn. The appellant in his deposition stated that the respondent wanted to sell the shop, therefore he wanted to eject him. As far as the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the attempt of the respondent to sell the shop on a previous occasion is concerned. I may say that this fact by itself is not sufficient to prove that ejectment application is mala fide. The law provides sufficient safeguards for a tenant who is ejected from the disputed shop on the personal ground of landlord. If the respondent does riot occupy the premises he after getting it vacated from the tenant on that ground, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent may not occupy the premises himself after ejecting the appellant from the premises is, therefore, ill‑founded. The law has provided protection to a tenant by enacting section 15‑A of the said Ordinance which empowers the Rent Controller to punish a landlord and to impose fine not exceeding the rent of one year in case a landlord Tails to occupy the tenement, the possession of which he obtains on the ground of personal requirement. I, therefore, find no justification in the above appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed. I grant six months time to vacate the premises on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T Appeal dismissed.