P L D 1988 Karachi 348 (PLP)

This appeal calls in question order dated ii‑3‑1985 passed by a learned XVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi whereby eviction is granted on the ground of personal need. Briefly stated that relevant facts are that respondent Abdul Karim applied for ejectment against appellant Abid (hereinafter to be referred as landlord and tenant respectively) under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to the said Ordinance). Rented accommodation it! shop No.1 on p . to No.R.C.12148 Gopal Street, Ranchore Line, Karachion monthly rental of Rs.63. Ejectment had been sought on two grounds. Firstly that landlord wanted to set up his eldest son in business so that his marriage could be arranged. Secondly that tenant committed default in payment of rent for 3 months. In written statement tenant denied allegations and took up the stand that he was not liable to ejectment. In evidence landlord examined himself and his son Abdul Khaliq and on the other hand tenant examined himself. After appraisal of evidence Rent Controller found issue of default against the landlord and ordered eviction on the ground of personal need only. There is no cross‑appeal regarding default. In appeal I have heard Mr. Shifaat Hussain for tenant and Mr. Rashiduddin for landlord. It is submitted on behalf of tenant that requirement of premises on the ground of personal need is not bona fide but mala fide. In that case burden of proof shifts to the tenant. Landlord has described. the need in sufficient detail in application for ejectment. Need is two‑fold.. Firstly shop in occupation of landlord and business conducted there is not sufficient to accommodate son and meet requirements ' of large family. Secondly son is to be set up in business so that his marriage could be arranged, Landlord has reiterated these facts in his affidavit of evidence. Landlord has not faltered in cross‑examination and there is nothing adverse in it to say that landlord has lied. Learned counsel for tenant submitted before me that landlord has two other shops one in Rehmat Manzil and the other in Shafiq Manzil. Perhaps half such suggestion was made to the landlord in cross‑examination and he has stated categorically as under:‑ "I have my godown in Rehmat Manzil under a stair‑case, I do not possess any other property besides building No.12/48. No further question was put to the landlord about Shafiq Manzil, had it been done, landlord would have explained the position. Cross‑examination is the proper stage to ask questions, if veracity, and credibility of the witness is proposed to be challenged. Landlord also denied that his son has another shop. Mere photograph does not prove conclusively that son runs another shop. Such allegation is to be proved by positive evidence. No further questions have been put to landlord relating to the requirement of shop in dispute. Landlord has examined his son Abdul Khaliq, who has stated in his affidavit of evidence that shop of his father is small and not sufficient for needs of the family and he wants to settle down in life and not be a burden on his father and for that purpose, he wants shop in dispute. In cross‑examination he was confronted with photo Exh.0/5 and he explained that photo was of the cabin of his cousin. He has denied that he has a shop in Rehmat Manzil. He stated that his marriage could not take place because he has no separate business as required by his in‑laws. There is nothing adverse in his cross -examination to show that he is a false witness. Mr. Shifaat Hussain submitted before me that landlord had indulged in concealment of facts before the Rent Controller. He stated ,that landlord did not mention requirement of shop for personal need in notice, dated 22‑12‑1981. Perusal of record shows that this notice dated 22‑12‑1981 is notice of allotment sent by previous landlord Saifuddin s/o Ismail, in which this fact is mentioned that entire plot is sold to Abdul Karim. New landlord is expected to require sometime 'to find out about his needs and how could they be met after acquisition of new property. An other grievance was made that in notice Exh.0/3 the fact is not mentioned that shop was required for son Exh,0/3 is notice dated 15th August, 1982 sent by new landlord Abdul Karim to the tenant in which objection is taken that after attornment tenant had illegally taken possession of cabin, which was not pert of tenement of Shop No.

1. It is further stated in the said notice that tenant had promised to vacate the cabin but did not do so, hence, he was called upon to vacate it within one month. Tenant in reply dated 5‑9‑1982 Exh.O/4 has claimed that cabin is part of tenement. During evidence landlord took cry specific stand that cabin was not part of tenement and tenant could not produce any evidence in support of his claim to belie the landlord. Tenant did not ask landlord in cross‑examination about his threat to evict tenant if 'he did not vacate cabin. Tenant has riot examined previous landlord or any other witness in support 'of his claim that cabin was part and parcel of his tenement. I do not want to go into this question any further for the reason that landlord has filed a separate suit for declaration and possession in respect of that cabin against tenant in a competent Court, where the matter is sub judice. So far this appeal is concerned landlord has produced satisfactory evidence. It is not disputed that landlord has large family of 12 members, his son is of marriageable age and he wants to set up his son in business. Landlord has done his duty by producing satisfactory evidence which is consistent with his averments in the ejectment application. In support of this proposition reliance can be placed on the cases of Hassan Khan v. Mrs. Munawar Begum P L DiB 1976 Kar. 832 and Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Adam Khan 1983 CLC 2657. For the facts and reasons stated above I uphold the impugned order of ejectment on the ground of personal need and dismiss this appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs. Tenant is directed to hand over vacant possession within two months subject to payment of rent. H . B . T . /A‑278/ K. .................................................. Appeal dismissed.