1982 PLP 2 (CLC)

In this case R & P has been called for and has been examined by me. The Rent Controller has been pleased to grant eviction on the ground o personal bona fide use and the finding is challenged on three grounds firstly, that the landlord has another premises at Lawrence Road where he was carrying on business under the name and style of Sun Light Metal Works ; secondly, that the landlord had asked for enhancement of rent and lastly, that the landlord has other premises. In so far as the last contention is concerned I had understood the learned counsel for the appellant as suggesting that some vacant shops were lying with the landlord but he had ail the same chosen to seek eviction of the appellant from the shop in dispute. However, it would appear from the evidence that the case is that there are other premises but what was probably sought to be argued was that the landlord, therefore, ought to have proceeded against the other tenants in occupation of adjoining to choose one of the tenanted shop for his personal bona fide use and if that is established as the fact that there were other tenanted shops and the landlord had not proceeded against any of them would not be relevant. As regards the first contention no doubt that in the written statement an allegation was made that the landlord was carrying on business at Lawrence Road under the name and style of Sun Light Metal Works but this contention was abandoned in the evidence and no question was put to the landlord regarding this business. Coming to the contention regarding enhancement of rent by the landlord the written statement was silent on this point and in so far as the evidence is concerned only a vague suggestion was put to the landlord in his cross‑examination that he had asked for rent being enhanced which the landlord categorically denied. This allegation was repeated by the tenant in his evidence but it is significant that no particulars of the alleged demand for enhancement of rent were given by him in his deposition.

2. If, in these circumstances the learned Controller came to the finding that the premises in questions was required by the landlord who had deposed that he was unemployed and had no other business premises to commence his business, there would be no room for interference by this Court.

3. The learned counsel also argued that the landlord was an old person aged 70 years and, therefore, not in a physical condition to do any business. In so far as the landlord is concerned it was not put to him that he was so in‑firm as not to be able to do any business. All that was put to him was that because of old age, be could not do any business which suggestion was categorically denied by him.

4. Before parting I may refer to the contention of Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not open to this Court to dismiss this appeal without hearing both the parties. The learned counsel invited my attention to subsection (2) of section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which read as follows :‑ "The Appellate Authority shall, after perusing the record of the case and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, and if necessary, after making such further enquiry either by himself or by the Controller, make an appropriate order, which shall be final." As I understand the subsection enjoins the Appellate Authority to peruse the record of the case, which has been done for R. & P. was called for and has been examined. In so far as the giving of an opportunity to the parties of being heard is concerned it is quite obviously that it is for the benefit of the parties. No purpose will be served by giving the other party an opportunity of being heard when the party aggrieved by the order has been heard fully and the case is found to be without any merit. It would be to my mind an exercise in futility if in these circumstances the Court is obliged to give notice to a party in whose favour the Court is in fact deciding.

5. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is dismissed. The appellant will have four months time to vacate the premises provided he deposits rent for the four months in advance within a week. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.