2010 PLP 1490 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN CHAUDHRY, J.

This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.936, 937 and 938 of 2008 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in all the cases.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of instant writ petitions are that on 22-12-2005 the respondent No.1 filed ejectment petitions against the petitioners in respect of shops Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4, Plot No.4-F, Shaheen Market Sector E-7, Islamabad, contending therein that he purchased the suit shops from one Mst. Shahnaz Bano under whom the petitioners were tenants, so he leased out shops Nos. 1 and 2 to Abid Hussain (petitioner in W.P.No.938 of 2008) @ Rs.8,000 per month, shop No.3 to Zafar Mehmood (petitioner in W.P.No.936 of 2008) and shop No.4 to Muhammad Rafique (petitioner in W. P. No.937 of 2008) @ Rs.4,000 per month each, vide lease agreements dated 29-10-2004, 25-11-2004 and 23-11-2004, respectively, for a period of one year w.e.f. 1-10-2004 which were not extendable and were to expire on 30-9-2005. Respondent No.1 apart from seeking eviction of tenant from the rented property, on account of expiry of lease term also sought ejectment on the ground of his bona fide personal need and reconstruction, by explaining that he deals in sale and distribution of branded electronic components and is conducting his business activities in different rented premises. The respondent served a notice of eviction to the tenants but they failed to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to him.

3. The ejectment petitions were allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Islamabad, vide judgment dated 4-2-2008 and the petitioners were directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit shops/premises to the respondent within 30 days. Aggrieved of the judgment of the trial Court petitioners approached the learned District Court Islamabad, on 22-4-2008 through Civil Appeals Nos.93, 94 and 95 of 2008, but their appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, vide judgment dated 27-6-2C08.

4. Mr. Tahir Mehmood Abbasi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned judgments and decrees are against the law and facts of the case and are based upon conjectures and surmises. He added that the impugned judgments have resulted in miscarriage of Justice as both the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that requirement of landlord is neither reasonable nor bona fide but aimed at increasing the rent of demised premises. Reliance was placed on Captain Dr. Muhammad Rafiq v. Muhammad Abdul Hayee 1983 CLC 237 (Lahore). He further contended that the impugned judgments are based upon extraneous considerations.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issues were not properly framed by the learned Rent Controller and it offends the provisions of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. He has maintained that ejectment of the petitioners could be sought only on the grounds given in section 17 of the said Ordinance and there was nothing in section 17 to show that the tenant could be ordered to be ejected from the rented premises merely on the ground of expiry of lease period. Reliance has been placed on Mst. Munawar Sultana v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad and 2 others 2005 CLC 1119 (Lahore). It is also contended that ejectment on the grounds of bona fide personal need of the landlord and reconstruction of demised premises could not be taken together as they are destructive to each other as either the landlord will reconstruct or occupy demised premises and the necessary sanction of the competent authority for reconstruction is also missing in the instant case. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Akram v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nawabshah and 2 others 2008 MLD 1184, Khalilur Rehman v. The Controller of Post Offices, General Post Officers, Karachi and 2 others 1987 CLC 333(Karachi) and Messrs Service Industries Limited v. Muhammad Raghib and another 1986 SCMR

637. The learned counsel has seriously objected the way of recording of evidence by the learned trial Court. He has maintained that the learned trial Court recorded the evidence only in one case which was copied in the other cases. The procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller for copying statements of the witnesses in other cases was not in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on Shabbir and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima 1987 CLC 1407 (Karachi) and Mirza Muhammad Sabir Baig v, Muhammad Saeed 1993 MLD 1217 (Karachi).

6. Mr. Raza Farooq, Advocate assisted by Mr. Muhammad Adil Khokhar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 contended that respondent No.1 is carrying on business of sale and distribution of electronic components in rented premises instead of his own properties as the same are in occupation of the petitioners and it is his legal vested right to carry on business in his own premises. He further contended that respondent No.1 accommodated the petitioners by providing them sufficient time of one year to arrange for alternate place for their business but they refused to vacate the demised premises even after the expiry of stipulated period of one year. He argued that both the learned Courts below have rightly decided the matter in favour of respondent No.1 in view of oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned counsel has pointed out that Sadaqat Khan, etc. has filed ejectment petition against the respondent No.1 which is pending in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Islamabad for the vacation of the premises where he is carrying on his business.

7. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that since the subject-matter of instant petition pertains to the factual controversy, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under its writ jurisdiction and petitioners could only agitate the illegality or legal infirmity committed by the trial Court/appellate Court while deciding the Eviction Petitions/ Appeals. He added that the petitioners have failed to comply with the order dated 11-8-2008 passed by this Court, regarding deposit of monthly rent. Learned counsel further added that petitioners never deposited the water bill regarding the rented premises, which amounts to default committed by them under explanation clause of section 17 of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. Learned counsel submitted that the ground taken by the respondent No.1 pertaining to the renovation of the shops was an ancillary one in the ejectment petitions, whereas, the main ground was the personal bona fide need and expiry of lease period i.e. one year.

8. Arguments heard, record perused.

9. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that the premises in question are required by the respondent for his own bona fide personal need. The paramount question to be determined by this Court is that whether the findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.5 to 7 upheld by the learned first appellate Court are sustainable in the eye of law or call for interference.

10. From the perusal of the evidence available on record, it has come on surface that the respondent is conducting his business activities at different rented premises located at different places i.e. houses Nos.225, 237-A and 237-B, Street No.21 Sector E-7, Islamabad. The respondent appearing as A.W.I tendered his affidavit and placed on record copies of the ices Mark-K to Mark-S showing that the landlord under whom he is a tenant had put him to a demand to vacate the premises. In lieu of the said notices he has to vacate House No.237-B. The proceedings under section 17 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 are pending against him regarding the other premises as well. The respondent in support of his oral version has placed on record documentary evidence as well which reveals that he is carrying on business of sale and distribution of electronic components in rented premises and he requires the demised premises for his own bona fide personal use for establishing the said business in his own premises. The landlord has the option to carry on business in the premises of his own choice.

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that expiry of the lease period is not a valid ground available for their eviction under section 17 of the IRRO, 2001 and that the grounds of bona fide personal need of the respondent as well as reconstruction of demised premises cannot be taken together as both are destructive of each other carries no weight in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases. The objection that the evidence was recorded in one case and copied in other cases does not find support from the record.

12. The ejectment petitions filed by the respondent have been accepted mainly keeping in view his bona fide personal need. The other grounds taken by the respondent pertaining to the renovation of the shops and expiry of the lease period were ancillary one. The respondent cannot be non-suited merely on the ground that while filing the petition under section 17 of the IRRO, 2001 besides the ground of bona fide personal need he has also taken tee ground of renovation of the demised premises and that the lease period has already been expired.

13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below. No interference in writ jurisdiction is called for by this Court. Resultantly, the instant writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./Z-30/Isl. Petitions dismissed.