1995 PLP 820 (MLD)

5. Further affidavit‑in‑evidence of the respondent Abdul Waheed and Hafiz Muhammad Farid were filed, Abdul Waheed was cross‑examined. Appellant also filed affidavit‑in‑evidence he was also cross‑examined.

6. Learned Rent Controller framed the following points for determination: (1) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? (2) Whether the respondent needs the disputed premises for personal bona fide use?

7. The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist at the time of filing ejectment application, as the respondent had only entered into sale agreement with the original owner Mst. Yasmeen Shakil. He has relied on 1986 MLD 1302 and 1986 MLD 1169. He has further argued that issue of relationship between the parties was to be decided first, and then in the light of that finding, issue regarding bona fide personal use was to be decided. He has also further argued that all other respondents except Abdul Waheed have not submitted themselves for cross‑examination as such their evidence in discarded. He has relied on NLR 1986 AC 277.

8. Learned Advocate for the respondent has argued that relationship has been admitted by the appellant in his written statement. He further submits respondent Abdul Waheed produced registered sale‑deed and also letter addressed to the appellant by original owner Mst. Yasmeen Shakil dated 30‑12‑1990 stating therein that she has transferred all her rights to respondents.

9. On the points of personal bona fide use, the Advocate for the respondent has argued that even if the evidence of other respondent except Abdul Waheed is not considered, as they have not submitted themselves for cross‑examination, evidence of Abdul Waheed is sufficient to prove the bona fide need. He has not been cross‑examined on the point of personal bona fide need. Appellant even in his affidavit‑in‑evidence has not challenged the plea of personal bona fide need of respondent. He has relied on 1989 CLC 787, 1983 CLC 2327 and 1985 CLC 2281.

10. As regards the contention of the appellant's Advocate that first issue of relationship was to be decided, and then in the light of that finding issue of bona fide personal use to be decided, the learned Advocate for the respondent has argued that issue of relationship was not a preliminary issue, but was additional issue, as such both issues have been rightly decided by the Rent Controller together.

11. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on Muhammad Idrees v. Saeeda Ahmed (1986 MLD 1302) and Anwari Begum v. Mukhtar Begum (1986 MLD 1169). Both cases are distinguishable, as in first case the dispute was pending regarding ownership in Civil Court, and in second there was mere entry in the record of Municipal Corporation showing the name of person as occupant for the purpose of taxes.

12. It has been held in Saleem Durrani v. Shafiq Ahmed Thahim (NLR 1986 AC 277) that eviction, ordered without giving opportunity to tenant to cross‑examine male child for whose use demised premises was required, set aside case remanded for fresh decision after allowing tenant such opportunity. In that case request for cross‑examination was made, but disallowed.

13. In case of Habib Khan v. Haji Haroon Rasheed (1989 CLC 783) it has been held once a person acknowledged himself to be the tenant of landlord, principle of estoppel as enunciated in Article 115, Qanun‑e‑Shahadat would come into play, debarring such tenant to deny title of his landlord.

14. It has been held in Gul Hassan v. Habibullah (1985 CLC 2281). If there are more than one landlord of a premises all of them need not be examined in case. If out of several joint landlord of a premises, only one of them appears and depose in support of case and his evidence is found sufficient to prove their case of personal and bona fide requirement, then application for ejectment cannot be refused on the ground that other landlords has not come in witness‑box in support of case.

15. It has been held in Mansoor Ahmed Gaya v. Mian Rehmatullah (1983 CLC 2332) that landlord's assertion for personal use or that of his children. Held to prove same, it is not necessary for him to examine children specially when such assertion not shaken in cross‑examination. Choice with landlord to select and choose any accommodation in his property to suit his requirement.

16. The relationship of landlord and tenant have been accepted by appellant in his written statement. The relationship of tenant and landlord is also clear from the letter of Mst. Yasmeen Shakil transferring his all rights to respondents. A registered sale‑deed has also been produced to establish that the respondent is owner of the premises in question.

17. Definition of landlord as defined in section 2(f) to the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance is the landlord means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises. Mr. Yasmeen Shakil by his letter has transferred all her rights to the respondent thereby authorising or entitling the respondent to receive the rent. This letter has been sent to the appellant before filing of the ejectment application.

18. Evidence of other witnesses, except Abdul Waheed, will not be considered as they have only filed affidavit‑in‑evidence but have not made themselves available for cross‑examination. Evidence of Abdul Waheed is enough to prove personal bona fide need. It has also come on the record that the respondents are six brothers having a widow mother. Two of them are married having children and wives. The contention regarding bona fide need of the premises in question has neither been challenged in cross‑examination of Abdul Waheed nor appellant in affidavit‑in‑evidence has challenged it. This amounts to admitting to the contention‑of the respondents regarding personal bona fide use.

19. There is nothing on record to substantiate argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant that first issue of relationship was to be decided, and then evidence was to be adduced for determination of issue of bona fide personal use. The very order regarding issue of relationship shows that this issue was framed as an additional issue, and not as a preliminary issue. Respondents have given additional affidavit‑in‑evidence for that issue of appellant in his affidavit‑in‑evidence has restricted himself to issue of relationship only, it is his mistake.

20. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that respondent are landlord of the premises and they need premises for personal bona fide use. I' see no reason to interfere the impugned order. Appeal is set aside. Appellant is granted 60 days time to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the respondent. H.B.T./A‑1497/K Appeal dismissed.