1997 PLP 1796 (CLC)

4.???????? The writ petition can be dismissed by a short order, for the single reason that factual controversy cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise this writ petition is without any substance. Thels respondent‑3/landlord was a retired clerk aged about 70/72 years having cordial relations with the petitioner, so much so that he started business jointly with respondent No.4/landlord Waqif Shah. The petitioner was served with a notice of eviction in 1978 immediately after becoming jobless. In response to the said notice the petitioner approached him and he was told that he is unable to render B any other service except to require the shop to run a business in it. A Jirga of respectable persons was also convened to persuade the petitioner for eviction of the shop. The petitioner offered enhancement of rent but since the shop was genuinely required for self‑business, the offer was rejected. The petitioner was allowed one year more time for. having cordial relations with him. As to the objection that due to old age he himself is incapable to run any business, he explained in these words:‑‑ "I will start my business myself. My sons will remain with me and after I am satisfied that they can do the business independently then I will leave them to continue my business. " The respondent‑3/landlord has also explained that hardware business is being run in the vicinity of the shop and he will run a cold‑drink business in the shop. .The business which the landlord has chosen hardly requires strong physique of knowledge or experience and could easily be controlled .with the help of sons or servants employed. This iS an admitted fact that the petitioner was served with eviction notice (though not required under the law) in 1978‑79.'" ??????????? The retired landlord was not allowed to enter the shop and to run business for teat long years and respondent/landlord was forced to knock at the door of the Court of competent jurisdiction in 1989. The documents appended with this writ petition indicated that evidence of landlord was closed on 13‑6‑1990 but the evidence of the petitioner/tenant could not be recordd earlier than 1,9‑4‑1994. The evidence of the landlord was completed on one nd the same day i.e. 13‑6‑1990 but ‑ the evidence of the petitioner/teant was recorded in piecemeal at four adjournments started from 19‑4‑194 and the statement was left incomplete because an irrelevant document Exh. D. W 1 was produce dbringing the concerned register. He could not produce any relevant record on theadjourned date. No other witness was produced on the said adjourned date (28‑4‑1994). D.Ws.2 and 3 were produced on 27‑9‑1994 and D.W.4 was? produced on 10‑11‑1994. The eviction order was passed on 10 ‑12‑1995. The conduct of the .petitioner/tenant speaks of his mala fide to increase the agony of the respondents/landlord. Had there been an iota of evidence to. show the mala fide on . the part of the respondents/landlord regarding personal need, the petitioner should not have delayed the proceedings for such a long time. .

5. The only contention agitated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is ~ that respondents/landlord have failed to establish their bona fide requirement of personal need and the Rent Controller was not .legally justified to order eviction of the petitioner on the sole ground of personal need: Sufficient evidence was brought on record in this behalf. .lt has been held by ‑ their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the. case of Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali (1997 SCMR 1062) as under:‑‑ "We have gone through the statement of the appellant recorded before the Rent Controller in the case. The appellant in his evidence clearly stated that he required the premises for his personal and bona fide need and that he is presently not occupying any other shop or premises where he could do the business in the cantonment area. He was subjected to a very lengthy cross‑examination by the counsel for the respondent but his evidence could not be shaken. Nothing was brought on record to show that the appellant was in possession of any other property in the cantonment area suitable for his needs and requirements. It has been held by this Court in the case Messrs F.K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze (1996 SCMR 1178), that even the, sole testimony of the landlord is sufficient to establish the personal and bona fide requirement of landlord. In the case before us, the statement by the appellant on oath was quite consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application and neither this statement was shaken nor ?nything was brought ‑in evidence to contradict his statement. " , 6.. The petitioner has tried to defend his tenancy over the suit shop against the bona fide requirement of personal need of the respondent/landlord on the p ground that the respondent is owner of other shops too and previously he evicted shops for his personal need but did not occupy the same. This is no excuse against the lawful. object of personal need of the landlord. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was subject to the right of eviction of the landlord under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as amended by the Amendment Act, 1965 which reads as under:‑‑ "Sec. 13(3)(a).‑‑A .landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession‑‑‑ (i) in the case of a residential building, if‑ .(a) he requires... (b) he is notbbb (c) he has B (ii) in the case of a non‑residential building or a scheduled or rented land, if‑‑ (a) he requires it in good faith for his own use, or for the use of any of his children.. 7.???????? It was observed in the case of Messrs Mustafa Oil Mills v. Muhammad? sif (1997 CLC 339) as under:‑‑ "The only point for the consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent has proved his need in good faith. The respondent/landlord in para. 2 of his eviction application has stated about his need in good faith in respect of the godown? premises and has reiterated by giving full details in his affidavit‑in‑evidence in para. 2 to

10. The appellants/tenants in their lengthy cross??????? examination could not shake the testimony of the respondent/landlord in respect of their need of godown premises in good faith. Even no suggestion was made to the respondent as he was in service therefore he would not be able to carry on the said business. Mere fact that earlier ejectment application filed by previous owner was disallowed at the appellate stage on the technical ground that the application was not filed against the tenants but was filed against one of the partner would not by itself negate the good faith for personal requirement ' of the respondent/landlord. "

8. For the reasons stated above, we hold that this writ petition is without any force and is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith C.M. No.842 of 1997. M.A.K./2175/P ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed