1991 PLP 1236 (CLC)

Farooq H. Naek for, Appellants. Hussain Adil Khatri for Respondent. Dates of Hearing: 16th, 30th September and 28th October, 1990. The appellant riled application for ejectment of the respondent in respect of Shop No.1 situated on ground floor of the Building No.568‑C, Central Commercial Area, Block 11, Khushal Road, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi. According to the appellant there was originally one shop but it was converted into two shops and one was rented out to the respondent and the other to another tenant. It was alleged that the shop is required in good faith for the occupation and use of her son Hilal‑uddin who intends to start his business of general merchant‑cum -medical store. The appellant and her son reside in upper portion of the said building. It was also alleged that the respondent has defaulted in payment of rent from June 1985 till October, 1985 but this issue has not been pressed in appeal. The respondent denied the averments made in the application. The learned Controller on assessment of evidence dismissed (lie ejectment application. Mr. Farooq H. Nack the learned counsel for the appellant.‑ has contended that the premises is bona fide and in good faith required by the appellant. The claim is in respect of both the shops which are adjacent. One of them 'was rented out to respondent and the other one to Roshan H. Nanjee. The appellant wants both the shops for carrying on business by her son. In the other case namely F.R.A. No.881/1988 ejectment of the tenant has been allowed ' (in the ground that he has made alterations and additions without the written consent of the landlady which has materially affected the value and utility of the building. Since one shop will already be available to the appellant the question is whether in such circumstances the appellant can still claim the second shop for personal requirement of her son. From the evidence it seems that the appellant wants to use it as a shop for her son who is unemployed and is carrying on video cassette business from a pan cabin or as alleged by the respondents from the first floor where he resides. The facts disclosed in the evidence are that he wants to carry on business of general and medical store. No further details have been given to Justify requirement in respect of both the shops. This plea has been rejected by the learned Controller on, the ground that in a case filed by the appellant under section 14 for personal use of Hilaluddin the High Court had given a finding that plea of such requirement has not been proved. The same plea has been repeated in application under section

15. Although the applications were under different Provision s the issue was the same between the same parties and therefore the controller was justified in rejecting the plea of personal requirement. Even if for Argument sake the appellant succeeds in proving this plea in my view as the tenant in Shop No.2 which was subject‑matter of F.R.A. No. 881/89 has been ordered to be ejected under section 15 (2) (iv) the said shop is now available to the appellant which in my view is sufficient to carry I oil the business of general store and medical store. In these circumstances personal requirement of the appellant has not been made out. Tile appeal is therefore dismissed. H.B.T./R‑169/K Appeal dismissed.