2001 PLP 1980 (SCMR)

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court dated 13‑12‑1999 whereby first rent appeal filed by him against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller Hyderabad was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Dr. Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry filed ejectment application against the petitioner seeking eviction from shop bearing C.S.No.B/28‑1398/2 situated at Shahi Bazar, Hyderabad on the ground that he required the said shop for his personal bona fide use as he wanted to run a private clinic in the said shop. The petitioner contested the rent application and filed a written statement in which he denied the averments made in the ejectment application. Both the parties led their evidence by filing respective affidavit‑in‑evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the Rent Controller vide order' dated 8‑3‑1993 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to hand over vacant physical possession of the demised premises to the petitioner within sixty days. Petitioner filed First Rent Appeal No.25 of 1999 before the High Court of Sindh but without any success.

3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the demised premises are not required by the respondent for his personal bona fide use and that the respondent wants to eject the petitioner from the premises for the purpose of selling out the property or letting it on higher rate of rent.

4. We have examined the material on record with care and scrutinised the evidence adduced by the parties. We find that the view taken by the learned Judge in Chambers is unexceptionable and does not admit of any interference. In the rent application as well as affidavit‑in‑evidence, the respondent in unequivocal terms stated that he was a doctor by profession and he required the demised shop for setting up his clinic. He further stated that the shop in possession of the petitioner was the only shop owned by him. Aforesaid version of the respondent was not shaken during cross examination and thus, stands admitted. Both the learned Rent Controller as well as the High Court have properly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and rightly allowed the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. Respondent who is a qualified doctor after his retirement wants to establish his clinic in the demised premises for earning his livelihood, whereas he does not own any other shop at Hyderabad. Petitioner has not been able to shatter the bona fides of the respondent. In the absence of any strong circumstance to the contrary, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. Resultantly the petition is dismissed and leave is refused. However, two months' time is allowed to the petitioner to hand over vacant physical possession to the petitioner subject to payment of rent and other charges. Upon expiry of the above period, writ of ejectment may be issued without notice. M.B.A./S‑92/5 Petition dismissed.