1992 PLP 944 (MLD)

This First Rent Appeal has been filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Ordinance") against the order, dated 11th October, 1980 of Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Tando Allahyar. The facts are that appellants filed rent application under section 15(1) of the Ordinance against respondents on the ground of personal bona fide use arid default in payment of rent from January, 1979 up to the tiling of rent application i.e. 20‑5‑1980. A written statement was filed in which it is stated that from January, 1979 the rent was not being accepted by the appellants with mala fide intention therefore they started tendering the rent by way of money order which were also refused as such with the permission of the Rent Controller, they are depositing rent in miscellaneous rent application. It is stated in written statement that respondents have been running Musafirkhana since very beginning and also incurred huge amount on repairs, renovation, etc. to the tune of Rs.48,000 and after repairs the appellants are creating false and fabricated grounds for ejectment with mala fide intention. Both the parties before the Rent Controller examined witnesses. The Rent Controller framed the issues and finally dismissed the rent application therefore appellants have tiled this appeal. Haji Ali Muhammad in his evidence stated that the appellants are his sons and he is guardian of minors and attorney of Abdul Sattar. He stated that upper portion of the Musafirkhana was rented out to the respondents at the rate of Rs.400 per month and such agreement was executed for two years on 25‑1‑1977 which expired on 31‑12‑1978 and tenancy has not been extended. In terms of the agreement respondents will have to hand over the vacant possession of the Musafirkhana to appellants. He has stated that respondents did not tender the monthly rent .from January, 1979 therefore committed default. Thereafter they made an application under section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which was contested but Rent Controller ordered the respondents to deposit the rent in Court at their own risk. He has stated that applicants/appellants are dealing in Goldsmith business but due to compelling circumstances of market uplifts in the rates of gold their business has been stopped and they want to run Musafirkhana themselves. Therefore they need the premises for bona fide personal use. In his cross‑examination he has stated that on the ground floor of the premises there are 8 shops rented to various persons and he also issued notices to the tenants of the shops of ground floor stating therein that he needed the shops for personal bona fide use. The Musafirkhana is with the respondents since 1974. He has stated that his son Abdul Sattar has got rented shop where he does goldsmith business. He has denied to have refused any money order sent by the respondents. His witness Abdul Hayee stated that both the parties are known to, him and they executed rent agreement on 25‑1‑1977 which was attested by him and one Iqbal Kazi, and no fresh agreement was executed by the appellants and that respondents are habitual defaulter and committed default from January, 1979. The appellants have goldsmith business which is stopped due to uplifts in gold market rates and they want to run Musafirkhana themselves. Hence their requirement is quite genuine. In his cross‑examination he has stated that four sons of Haji Ali Muhammad are adult and Abdul Sattar, Gul Muhammad run their goldsmith business and remaining two are under education. He has stated that Haji Ali Muhammad is related to him and he informed him that respondent, had sent rent by money order which he refused to accept. He has stated that respondent Yousuf sent notice to Haji Ali Muhammad to accept the rent which he came to know through Haji Ali Muhammad. Muhammad Bachal in his affidavit stated that respondents committed default in rent from January, 1979 and committed breach of agreement. He states that appellants have stopped their business due to uplift of rates of gold in market and they need premises for bona fide requirement. From the respondents side as many as five witnesses namely Muhammad Yousif respondent, and his witnesses Ghulam Rasool, Washumal, Sultan Muhammad and Gul Muhammad postman were examined. Respondent Muhammad Yousif in his evidence denied the allegations of the appellants and stated that he has spent huge amount on the repairs of disputed premises Musafirkhana. They were served notice on 6‑2‑1979 by Haji Ali Muhammad who is not the owner of the premises. There are 9 or 10 shops in the same building. Haji Ali Muhammad served similar notices on other tenants namely Washumal dated 12‑3‑1983. He produced copy of the notice as Exh.25 and reply given by Washumal as Exh.26. He has also produced two other notices dated 10‑1‑1978 and 8‑2‑1979 served on tenants Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool. He produced notices Exh.27 and 28 and reply as Exhs.29 and

30. He has stated that appellant Abdul Sattar has got two shops one situated near Jamia Masjid and another at Sonar Para Tando Allahyar, where they are carrying on business therefore the premises are not required for personal bona fide use by the appellants. He has produced notices served on other tenants namely Imam Bux Machi and his reply and matter was finally compromised when rent was enhanced from Rs.90 to 200 and such agreement was executed. He produced photostat copy of the agreement as Exh.35. He has stated that he never committed default in payment of rent, the rent was not being accepted by the appellants though sent by money orders therefore he made an application and Rent Controller allowed him to deposit the rent, in Court. He produced 34 money order coupons as Exhs.39/1 to 39/34 and rent receipt Exh.40. He also produced notice and reply as Exhs.41 and

42. Ghulam Rasool Exh.43 has stated that both the parties are known to him. He and his brother Ghulam Muhammad are tenants of the shop belonging to appellants and they were served with notice for handing over possession which they replied. He has stated that notices were given to all the tenants just to enhance the rent, and other tenants namely Washumal, Sultan Ahmed and Imam Bux had enhanced the rent and executed fresh agreements. 3 He has stated that appellants have got two shops one situated at Jamia Masjid and other at Sonora Para where Abdul Sattar and Gul Muhammad arc carrying on their business. The appellants are paying rent regularly. Washumal Exh.44 in his evidence stated that appellant served him notice Exh.25 which he replied and photostat copy is at Exh.26. He has stated that appellants are paying rent regularly. The same is evidence of Sultan Ahmed Exh.45 who stated that he agreed to enhance the rent after receiving the notice. Gul Muhammad postman Exh.48 in his evidence stated that money order coupons Exhs.39/1 to 39/34 are the coupons sent in the name of Abdul Sattar by Ghulam Murtaza. The money orders were returned back to sender .due to the non‑availability of address or on refusal on his part. He has stated that money order coupons returned alongwith the last portion are to be treated as refusal. I have heard Mr. A.Q. Halepota learned counsel for the appellants. It is argued by the learned counsel that default has been committed by the respondents and Musafirkhana is ‑required for personal bona fide use. From the evidence of Gul Muhammad, Abdul Hayee and Muhammad Bachal the annc1lants have been able to prove the requirement and default. Mr. Pir Bux Khamisani learned counsel for the respondents submitted that appellants are the owner of 9‑10 shops of the same premises and Musafirkhana is on the upper portion and appellants are running business which they have not closed down therefore personal bona fide requirement has not been proved. It is argued that appellants with mala fide intention refused to receive the rent and finally 'having other alternative the rent was being deposited in misc. rent application with permission of the Rent Controller. He has referred to the cases reported in 1984 Civil Law Cases 2469 and 2332 and 1980 SCMR 593 and 1988 SCMR

71. The appellants are the landlords of the disputed premises and respondents are the tenants at the rate of Rs.400 per month. The relationship and rate of rent is not disputed. It has also been admitted by Ali Muhammad that on the ground floor there are as many as 8 shops in the same premises. From the evidence of Muhammad Yousif and documents produced by him it is proved that notices were issued almost to all the tenants of the shops for personal bona fide requirement of the premises but subsequently as it is clear from the evidence of Washumal, Sultan and Ghulam Rasool that in some cases the rent was enhanced and fresh agreements were signed and matters were compromised. It has also come in the evidence that Abdul Sattar and Ghulam Muhammad are running goldsmith business and other two sons of Ali Muhammad were in the school. From the notice sent to Washumal Exh.25 it is' clear that appellants have stated that due to uplifts in the economical condition and growing need of family they need the premises for personal bona fide use. So at one time the notices for the requirements were issued to all the tenants I and subsequently on some terms, the notices were vacated and rent was enhanced and from the evidence it is clear that Rent Controller has rightly dispelled the contention of the. appellants for personal bona fide requirement. Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque learned counsel for respondent No.2l points out that: With regard to the default in payment of rent the respondents have sent money orders and witness Abdul Hayee who is related to Ali Muhammad has admitted that he was informed by Ali Ahmed that he refused the money orders. As many as 34 money orders coupons have been produced and postman has been examined from which it is clear that the requirement of law as given in section 10 of the Ordinance was fulfilled. Finally respondents having no other alternative filed application under section 10 of the Ordinance and continued to deposit the rent therefore, no default has been committed. The order of the Rent Controller is well reasoned and proper. For the reasons stated above this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑1161/K Appeal dismissed.