1993 PLP 67 (SCMR)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner, who is tenant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21‑11‑1991 of the learned Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi whereby F.RA. No.1081 of 1986 is allowed, reversing the order of the Rent Controller and granting eviction on the grounds of default and personal need. Briefly stated facts in the background are as under. Respondent/landlord filed Rent Case No.5783/1978 in the Court of IIIrd Rent Controller at Karachi for eviction of tenant under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the grounds of default, personal need and alterations. Tenant is in possession of three shops on the ground floor of the building since 1973. Initially, rent was Rs.60 per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.200. Landlord claims that there was default in payment of rent for 28 months and further the tenant has removed the partition walls of the shops and converted the premises into a factory. Third ground urged is that the premises are required by the landlord for his personal use as he is a Contractor and is doing the construction work. In the written statement the relationship of parties as landlord and tenant is admitted but the fact that the rent is enhanced to Rs.200 is denied alongwith allegation of default. Tenant, it appears, was minor, as such rent was paid by his father, Haji Ahmed in presence of witnesses, and landlord did not issue receipts. Landlord stopped receiving rent from April, 1978 and also refused money orders, hence tenant started depositing rent in Court in Misc. No.3843/1978. In the Court of Rent Controller, three issues were framed regarding default, personal need and alterations and these three issues were found against the landlord and as a result, ejectment application was dismissed. In the High Court, it appears that issue with regard to alterations was not pressed and findings in respect of issues on default and personal need were given in favour of the landlord. On issue of default, High Court held that in evidence, tenant took stand that he had deposited Rs.2000 with the landlord by way of security which was not refunded hence that amount could be adjusted against arrears. This was not what tenant had stated in the written statement. No mention was made in the written statement about the security. No receipt was produced. High Court held that it was burden on tenant to have satisfied the Court that the default was not committed. In evidence, landlord and tenant examined themselves only without examining any other witness. High Court took the view that there is discrepancy in the evidence of tenant who has taken contradictory stands and did not mention the fact of security in the written statement. So far issue of personal need is concerned, landlord stated in his application for ejectment that since he is Contractor by profession and has no place of his own to run that business, he needed the premises in dispute, for his personal use. Tenant denied this fact but has not produced any evidence to belie the claim of the landlord. Tenant has not produced any evidence to show that the landlord has in his possession some other place also to use as Office or Godown for his business of Building Contractor. It is not necessary for the landlord to give fullest possible description of personal use of the premises in ejectment application: He has mentioned this fact clearly in the ejectment application that he needs the premises for his personal use as he has no such place which could be used by him in his work as Building Contractor. It is correct that findings of the two Courts below are in conflict with each other as the Rent Controller has rejected the rent application which is allowed by the High Court in appeal. We have gone through the evidence recorded in this case with the help of Mr. Munawar Malik, learned ASC for the petitioner and are of the considered view that finding of the High Court is very much consistent with the evidence on record and also in accord with the principles of law as have been laid down in the judgments of the superior Courts on the subject. We, therefore, find no reason to interference with the judgment of the High Court against which petition for leave to appeal is filed. In the result, leave is refused and the petition is dismissed as it has no merits. (Sd.) Ajmal Mian, J. (Sd.) Sajjad Ali Shah, J. 24‑2‑1992 Heard Mr. Munawar Malik. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑I have verified from my register of notes, in which mention is made that four months time is allowed for vacating the demised premises when leave was refused and petition dismissed. This may be incorporated in the main order. AA./A‑967/S Leave refused. 12‑3‑1992