1986 PLP 690 (CLC)

(i) Whether the opponent had unauthorisedly converted the case premises into commercial use from residence? (ii) Whether the opponent has committed wilful default in the payment of rent, w.e.f. April, 1981 to August, 1981? (iii) Whether the opponent has damaged the case premises? (iv) Whether the applicant requires the case premises bona fidely for personal use in good faith? (v) What should the decree be?

4. The learned Rent Controller decided Issues Nos.l, 2 and 3 against the respondent and no appeal has been filed by the respondent against these findings. However, he decided issue No.4 against the appellant and ordered his ejectment.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Munir‑ur‑Rehman, learned counsel for the appellant, that evidence produced by the respondent is neither sufficient nor conclusive that the learned Rent Controller could have come to the finding, that he required the house for personal bona fide use. He has further submitted that there is no evidence on record except the sole word of the respondent and there are so many contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence that no reliance can be placed upon his testimony alone.

6. In his application for the ejectment of the premises in Rent Case No.5509/1980, the respondent has mentioned the ground of his personal requirement in para. 4 is in following words:‑-- "That the applicant has been living with the family of his own brother's house at 223/8, Azizabad, Karachi, and due to some family dispute the brother of the applicant has been pressing the applicant to vacate his house." The respondent has filed an affidavit‑in‑evidence in support of his claim. Para. 5 of this affidavit deals with his personal requirements wherein he states:-- "I say that I am living with my family in the house of my brother bearing No.223/8, Azizabad, Karachi, due to some dispute between him and my brother over short of accommodation. My brother is pressing me to vacate the house. The house in question is required for personal bona fide use and occupation for me and my family members in good faith." In the cross‑examination, however, he denies to be residing in the house bearing the number 223/8. Admittedly, he is an employee of Government of Punjab and presently posted in Punjab House at Karachi. He has denied in the cross‑examination, that he is residing in Punjab House at Karachi. He has also denied the suggestion, that he has been provided with a Government accommodation. He has admitted, that he is serving in Karachi since 5‑8‑1978.

7. It will be pertinent to note, that in his pleadings as well as in the affidavit, he states to be residing with his brother in his house bearing No.223/8, Azizabad, Karachi, whereas, in the cross‑examination he has denied to be living there. He has not stated anywhere, the number of his family members, how old they are, and what are their requirements. The only reason given by the respondent for requiring the house, was, that there was a dispute between him and his brother, who was pressing him to vacate the house. If he is no more living with his brother and is living at some other place, the ground on which he filed the application, is no more available to him. His brother has not come in box to state, that he is pressing the respondent to leave the house, or that he has left his house. It appears, that it is only the desire of the respondent to reside in his own house at Karachi after his transfer to Karachi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that mere desire of the landlord to reside in his own house, is not sufficient to order ejectment of the tenant, unless landlord is able to prove, that his requirement of the house in good faith and bona fide.

8. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the case of Mst. Farrukhnissa v. Safdar Ahmed and others, reported in P L D 1985 Kar.

639. In the said order, my learned brother Haider Ali Pirzada, J. , while discussing the meaning of phrase 'requires the premises in good faith' used in section 15(2)(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, has observed as under:‑ "The expression 'requires the premises in good faith' has been considered by the superior Courts on several occasions. Broadly stated mere wish, convenience, whim or fancy of the landlord would not be enough to show that landlord requires the premises in good faith. The landlord must allege and prove his/her requirement. The law does not require a landlord to establish absolute requirement or absolute need, without which he/she shall have no shelter over his/her head. What is meant by 'requires in good faith' is that the landlord requires the premises for her reasonable requirement or needs and that she is not seeking eviction on the pretext of requiring additional accommodation with an oblique motive of realising some extraneous purpose. The requirement has to be reasonable and in good faith. The onus of proof of this is certainly on the landlord. Although the word 'reasonable' does not appear in the Ordinance, the question of reasonableness is relevant in deciding the bona fides or good faith of the landlord. The words "good faith" means honestly and not acquainted by bad faith or oblique motive. Mere wish or intention of the landlord is not sufficient to give him/her a right to evict the tenant. Subsection (2) of section 15 of the said Ordinance further enjoins a duty upon the Controller to enquire into the requirement of the landlord and if on enquiry the Controller is satisfied that the requirement of the landlord will be met by occupation of the premises, then he has to pass an order of eviction. Therefore, all the relevant factors will have to be objectively considered before such a question is decided by the Rent Controller."

9. The mere word of the respondent alone, that he wants the premises for his personal bona fide requirement will not be sufficient for the Court to adjudge his bona fide requirement. When there is no evidence to show, where the respondent presently resides, whether that accommodation is rented or has been provided by the Government or is the house of his brother. There is no evidence to show as to what is number of his family members, what accommodation is presently occupied by them, whether it is sufficient for his requirement or not. There is also no evidence to show, that the brother or respondent, as alleged in the pleadings and affidavit is pressing the respondent to vacate the premises either on account of dispute or shortage of accommodation. There is no evidence to show the number of family members of the brother of the respondent or the number of rooms of other accommodation available in the house of the brother of the appellant. There is no evidence to show, whether there is any dispute between the respondent, his brother, and what is the dispute about. Without sufficient evidence, proving all these facts, the Court cannot come to the conclusion, that the premises are required by the respondent for his bona fide personal use. The impugned order of the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed by a short order, dated 27‑10‑1985. The above are the reasons in support of the said order. H.B.T. Appeal allowed.