1989SCMR207 (PLP)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Petitioners, tenants of a shop in Ratodero, Larkana, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 13‑4‑1987 whereby the appeal of the landlord was allowed and their ejectment was order from the shop and they were directed to vacate the premises by 31‑8‑1987. The ejectment application in this case was filed in August, 1982, seeking ejectment of the tenants on the ground that the landlord wanted to do his own business along with his son who was jobless. The tenants contested the fact that the landlord owned no other shop, that his son was jobless or that he needed the shop for his personal business. Evidence was led, but the learned Rent Controller rejected the application for the reasons appearing as hereunder:‑‑ "Though it is stated by the applicant in his affidavit that his son Ramzan is jobless, but he has not produced the affidavit of Ramzan to support of his contention. The applicant has also failed to bring any evidence on record that he has also raised sufficient funds to do any business in the shop in question and in absence of such evidence the contention of the applicant is not believeable and it appears the plea of personal bona fide use has been raised only for the purpose of the ejectment of the opponent from the shop in question. It is also admitted by the‑applicant in his cross‑examination Ex. 23 that previously the applicant had also initiated ejectment proceedings against the opponent No. 1, but the same were compromised and he agreed to receive the rent at the rate of Rs. 90 p.m. This admission on the part of the applicant also proves the contention of opponent that he has initiated the present proceedings to get the rent enhanced and otherwise he is not in need of the shop in question." On appeal of the landlord the learned Judge reappraised the entire evidence and came to a different conclusion holding as hereunder:‑‑ "Emphasis has wrongly been placed by the learned Rent Controller on the evidence that Shamsher, one of the appellant, is a teacher and such the shop for his use. Evidence brought on record shows that a is Ram a, another son of the appellant, who is jobless, and who intends to do business alongwith his father Suleman in the shop in question. The learned Rent Controller has also wrongly placed emphasis on the point that no evidence has been brought on record that the appellant had raised sufficient funds to do business in the' shop in question and in the absence of such evidence the contention of the appellant could not be believed. In my view in the facts of this case it was not necessary to bring such evidence on record. Apparently the appellant wanted to do tailoring business in the shop in question which did not require huge funds for commencement of such business." The learned counsel for the Petitioner in arguing the case of the tenants has relied mainly on a document mentioned as `Roobkari', a report by City Survey Officer, dated 18‑5‑1987 in respect of City Survey Nos. 175, 176, Ward `C'. He has also taken up all the grounds which had been urged before the High Court and the Rent Controller. In his written statement, the tenants had taken up their plea in the following words:‑‑ "In fact the applicant's son is serving as teacher and he does not need to do any other job. Moreover, the applicant has another shop also in the same locality in which the shop in dispute is situated. It is denied that applicant needs the shop in good faith for his own use. In fact the applicant demands an exorbitant rent for the shop in dispute and his demand being unreasonable, this opponent has refused to accept." 1 to cross‑examination he (Petitioner No. 1) made the following statement:‑‑ "I do not know how many sons of Muhammad Suleman are there. I do not know the son of Suleman who is teacher. There may be another son of the applicant named Ramzan excepting the son of Suleman who is teacher. It is correct that applicant is working as tailor at the cloth shop owned by Milanmal Hindu. The applicant has got two other shops excluding the suit shop. I have stated in my W.S. that the applicant hay got two other shops also. I cannot give the CS. No of the other two shop of the applicant as I am illiterate. l have not given the CS. Nos. of the shops owned by the applicant excepting the suit shop. I did not verify as to the CS. No of other shops owned by the applicant. I do not know if CS. Nos. 175 and 176 Ward C Ratodero are adjacent to each other I do not know if CS. Nos. 175 and 176 are both owned by the applicant " The Report of the Survey Officer dated 18‑5‑1987 is of little avail to the Petitioner because it is of a date after the decision of the High Court and is not an admitted document. We rind that the High Court has given plausible reasons for allowing the Appeal of the landlord and there is no further point of law to be examined in the case. Leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H./S‑209/S Leave to appeal refused.