2002 PLP 412 (SCMR)

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427‑K of 1999 as in these matters common question of facts and law are involved. The petitioners have impugned the judgment dated 10‑5‑1999 of learned Single Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh. whereby F.R.As. Nos. 485, 486, 487 and 494 of 1994 were dismissed and the order dated 31st July, 1994 passed by learned IInd Rent Controller, Karachi South, was maintained. The petitioners are tenants for respondent Met. Mehmooda Sabir in respect of Shops Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, constructed on Plot No. 1252, near Chowla Building Mehmoodabad No.6, Karachi. The respondent filed four eviction applications under section 19 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, against the petitioners for their eviction from demised shops and said applications on 11‑1‑1989 were dismissed for non‑prosecution. In the year 1989, she again filed eviction applications against the petitioners, under section 14 of the said Ordinance which were dismissed on 29‑8‑1991. These matters were taken to the High Court and on 19‑9‑1993 by consent the following order was passed:‑‑ "However, the learned counsel at this stage of the proceedings agree that the above and the connected appeals can be disposed of by consent through an order of remand for re‑examination of the matters by the learned Controller in terms of section 15 ibid on the basis of such additional evidence as both or any of the parties may choose to lead before the learned Controller. It will then, on the basis of such cumulative evidence as a whole, be for the learned Controller to determine the rights and obligations of the parties. Upon remand of the proceedings the matters, as far as possible, should be decided within a period of six months. " Learned Rent Controller vide Order dated 31‑7‑1994 allowed the eviction applications, granting 60 days' time to the petitioners for vacating the demised shops. These orders were challenged before the High Court and the First Rent Appeals were dismissed by the High Court by the order which has been impugned in these petitions. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that concurrent findings of Rent Controller and High Court are based upon misreading and non?-reading of evidence available on record. Learned counsel contends that, in spite of above‑referred remand order learned Rent Controller dealt with these matters under section 14 of the Ordinance and recorded incorrect finding, ignoring the real spirit of said section. He also argued that personal bona fide requirement of the demised shops for the son of the respondent was not at all proved, yet, the eviction applications were allowed on said ground. It is also urged by learned counsel that the respondent through her son was doing business in a big store of "Jamia Masjid Haft‑e‑Sultan", and there was no justification for seeking eviction of the petitioners. As against above, Mr. Raja Shamsuzzam, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the High Court has recorded its finding under section 15 of the Ordinance keeping in view the remand order referred to earlier. The High Court, while recording above finding, has taken into consideration all the evidence brought on record. We have examined the evidence and are of the view that the High Court has recorded its finding keeping in view section 15 of the Ordinance and rightly reached the conclusion that "there is enough evidence to establish good faith of the landlord about their personal need". Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that three sons of the respondent want to start their business in the demised shops. No concrete evidence has been brought on record in rebuttal of aforesaid claim of the respondent. Bona fide on the part of the respondent was established clearly. The findings of the Rent Controller and of the High Court are correct and no exception can be taken against the same. Accordingly, leave to appeal in these petitions is refused and the petitions are dismissed. All the petitioners are, however, granted three months' time, subject to the payment of rent, for handing over vacant possession of the shops to the respondent. In case the possession is not handed over as above, the writ of possession would be issued without notice with police aid, if. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-129/S Petition dismissed.