1986 PLP 2510 (MLD)

Shamsuddin Khalid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1986. This is an appeal against the order, dated 5th March, 1983 passed by XIV Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Link Judge to Court No.XV Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he allowed the rent application and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within three months. Appellant Maroof Ahmad is tenant in respect of premises of the commercial building on commercial Plot No.144‑Z, C‑P and Berar Society Blocks 7 and 8 Karachi while Dr. Capt. Sualeha Ali is landlady. The rate of rent is Rs.125 per month. The rent case filed by the respondent on 19‑9‑1980 on the ground that appellant is illegally and unauthorisedly raised construction in the premises and extended further construction by breaking the walls and also removed the windows impairing the value and utility of the building. She has also stated in the rent application that premises are required for her and for her husband, for personal bona fide professional use and occupation. She has also taken the ground of permanent nuisance. The appellant filed written statement in which he denied the allegations. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed only one issue of personal requirements of the respondent and decided the case in her favour. Before the Rent Controller Dr. Sualeha Ali, was examined while appellant examined himself, Landlady Dr. Sualeha Ali, her affidavit in evidence stated that she is running a clinic on the ground floor of the commercial plot measuring about 60 yards, and her husband Dr. Ghazanfar Ali is teaching in Dow Medical College and had completed 27 years of service and he can also join the clinic at any moment he gets his retirement which is due under service rules and, therefore, premises in question are urgently needed by her for the purpose of extension of clinic. She has also stated in her evidence that appellant has made some unauthorised construction and fought with one Fida Hussain their representative and such cases were filed and are pending. She has also stated that on 2nd May, 1980 appellant trespassed the ground floor premises and covered the open space by constructing an R.GC. roof of at about II' X 7' illegally and unauthorisedly. Appellant Maroof Ahmad has admitted that he is tenant of the respondent. He has stated that he is running a small business of handicraft articles under the name and "Style Ali Pakistan Museum" and he is using the premises for residential purpose also. He has stated that landlady has made false allegations about her personal requirements as she has got a double storey house bearing No.244 C.P. & Berar Society Blocks 7 and 8, besides this respondent has got House No.177‑V block 2, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi. He has stated that respondent is serving in K.M.C. as full time employee and she does not even attend the clinic which she has established on the ground floor but same is being run by her husband Mr. Ghazanfar Ali who is demonstrator in Dow Medical College, therefore, requirement of the landlady is neither bona fide nor genuine at all. He has also stated that he paid 88.20,000 as Pugri at the time when he took premises on rent. I have heard Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length. It is contended by the learned counsel that requirement of landlady is not bona fide as one portion of the same premises is lying vacant. He has also argued that respondent own a house in P.E.C.H.S. and there is no issue about the damage or construction. He has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1975 Lah. 308, 1982 C L C 1444, 1972 S C M R 437, 1983 C L C 1592, 1984 C L C 2849, P L D 1985 Kar. 624 and 639 and 1984 C L C 1783. On the other hand Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid Ahmad learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that respondent and her husband both are Doctors, and the present premises is unsufficient for them to carry out their profession. He has also argued that appellant has raised unauthorised construction and from time to time fighting with respondent and creating nuisance. He has also argued that premises were rented out to the respondent for business purpose but now he is using the premises as residential house and not carrying any business, therefore, he has violated the terms of agreement. He has submitted that respondent has proved the personal bona fide requirement. It has, also been argued that respondents daughter is also in process of clearing M.B.B.S. and will join their parents as a Doctor. He has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 772, P L D 1985 Kar. 7 and P L D 1982 Quetta

49. The premises are in commercial area and were rented out to the appellant for the purpose of running some business but it is an admitted fact that appellant is using these premises for residential purpose too. The respondent Dr. Capt. Sualeha Ali is serving in K.M.C. and it has come in evidence that her husband Dr. Ghazanfer Ali is demonstrator in Dow Medical College. The entire area of the building according to evidence is only 60 sq. yards. it has also been argued that daughter of respondent will soon join their parents in the same profession. There is long chain of litigation such as unauthorised construction, extension on the land belonging to respondent and also the injury cases were filed against the appellant. Mr. Maroof Ahmad in his, cross‑examination has boldly admitted that he had beaten one Fida Hussain who came to remove the unauthorised construction. The requirement of landlord is to be judged from the evidence. Landlady in her evidence stated that the premises are required for their personal requirement and her husband has completed 27 years of service who will join the clinic at any moment he gets his retirement. The Rent Controller by detailed order rightly allowed the rent case of respondent. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by landlady. The bona fide requirement has been proved and no mala fide on the part of landlady or husband has been pointed or proved from the evidence. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal and maintain the order of the Rent Controller. H. B. T. Appeal dismissed.