1986 PLP 1479 (CLC)

This is First Rent Appeal against the order dated 28‑2‑1982 passed by' the learned IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No. 5323 of 1979.

2. The respondent filed the ejectment application on 28‑i1‑1979 against the appellant seeking eviction of the appellant from Shop No.3 of Building No.C‑13/3, Liaquatabad, Karachi on the ground that he requires the same for his personal bona fide use as he had retired from the Government service on 23‑6‑1979 and is jobless and wants to start business of electronics there. The respondent sent a notice to the appellant on 19‑7‑1979 for vacating the said shop. Having received no reply, he filed an application for the same. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties allowed the said application by his order dated 28‑2‑1982 against which the appellant/ tenant has filed the above appeal.

3. I have heard Mr. S. Mushtaq Husain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mir Abdul Aziz, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Mr. S. Mushtaq Husain submitted that there were three shops in the building but the respondent chose to file the case only against the appellant with mala fide intention to pressurise him for increasing the rent as he did in the past. In this respect, he referred to me Rent Case No.2239 of 1976 which was withdrawn by the respondent after the rent was increased by the appellant from Rs.90 to Rs.115. He has further submitted that during the pendency of this ejectment application another shop was vacated by the tenant Nisar Ahmed but was relet by him to another tenant Mohammad Razique. Had he required the premises bona fide, he would not have relet the said shop Mohammad Razique.

5. In reply Mir Abdul Aziz, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the First Application No.2239 of 1976 was filed by the respondent on the ground of his personal bona fide use as he was the retire in 1977. Since he got an extension of two years in his service, he withdrew the said application. He invited my attention to the application for withdrawal of the earlier case (Exh.2) which clearly mentions that as the service of the respondent has been extended by the Government for two years he does not require the shop in question at present. In view of this, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force that the earlier application for ejectment moved by the respondent was mala fide and that he wants to pressurise the appellant for getting another increase in the rent.

6. As regards the second contention, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the other shop was not vacated by the tenant Nisar Ahmed; its possession remained with him and on vacating the same he gave its possession to the other tenant, of course, after obtaining the consent of the respondent. Mr. Abdul Aziz further submitted that the shop in question is bigger than the shop relet to Mohammad Raziq. This fact stands admitted by the appellant in his cross‑examination. It has a store also, which the other two shops do not have and was more suitable to his requirement. To support his contention he relied on a case reported as Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Hamandas 1973 S C M R

185. The following observations of the learned Supreme Court are relevant:‑ "If a landlord possesses more than one house in the same Urban area, the choice as to the house in which he would like to live himself is surely a matter within his prerogative and discretion, and the law does not give either to the tenant or to the Rent Controller the power to determine where the landlord should personally reside."

7. Mr. Mushtaq, on the other hand, submitted that there can be no absolute choice with the landlord. The requirement is to be bona fide and reasonable. He referred to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported as Mst. Farukh Nisa v. Safdar Ahmed and 6 others P L D 1985 Kar. 639.

8. It is true that the mere wish, convenience whim or fancy of the landlord is not to be considered but it is his reasonable and bona fide requirement which is to be proved for getting eviction of the tenant. I find that the requirement of the respondent has been sufficiently proved to be reasonable and bona fide. Admittedly he has retired from the Government service in 1979; immediately thereafter he filed the above ejectment application. He is job less. He disclosed the nature of the business to be established by him as that of electronics. The reasonableness of his making choice of the shop in question is also established by the fact, as admitted by the appellant himself, that the shop in question is the bigger one having a store. In the face of this evidence the learned Rent Controller was justified in allowing the application. For the foregoing reasons no case is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Controller. The appeal is dismissed. Since it is a shop, four months time is allowed to the appellant to vacate the same subject to his depositing monthly rent regularly with the Nazir of the District Court. H. B. T. Appeal dismissed.