1993 PLP 2268 (CLC)

(v) In order to add an earning member to the family of respondent comprising of six persons. (vi) That no other premises is at the disposal of the respondent where he could accommodate his son Fahim Ahmad Khan who after completion of his studies is jobless.

3. The respondent, therefore, approached the appellant asking him to vacate the disputed premises. The refusal of the appellant to do so led the parties into this litigation.

4. The appellant resisted his eviction by controverting the averments. According to him the shop already in occupation of the respondent caters his needs and the plea of personal requirement raised by him. is nothing but a smoke‑screen designed purposely as a sort of intimidation with a view to compel him to accede to the unreasonable demands in the matter of increase of rent and fixed deposit.

5. The parties went to trial on the following issues:‑‑ (i) Whether the applicant requires the demised premises for his personal bona fide use and so also for bona fide use of his son? . (ii) What should the order be?

6. The parties examined themselves and then closed their sides. On the assessment of evidence available on record the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (East), Karachi, decided issue No.1 against the appellant directing his eviction from the demised premises within sixty days. This order dated 8‑12‑1990 is the subject‑matter of the present appeal. 7. 1 have heard Mr. Abdul Fahim Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Zahid Marghoob, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the record of the case carefully. .

8. Clause (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, provides that the Rent Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises, if he is satisfied that:‑‑ "(vii) the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children."

9. The respondent as his own witness (P.W.1) has testified that he needs the disputed premises for the use of his son. He has given valid and cogent reasons to substantiate his bona fide requirement in paragraph 2 of his davit‑ila evidence. I have considered the evidence of the respondent in the light of the plea raised by the appellant and the criticism to which it has been subjected by his counsel. The evidence led by the respondent is not voluminous, but it seems straightforward and reliable as far it goes. The evidence of respondent makes it clear that he is a heart patient. The medical certificate in this behalf is on record (Exh.B/1). His evidence to this effect was not challenged in cross‑examination by the appellant and thus it is deemed to have been Accepted by him. In such a situation the desire of the respondent to get his sot Fahim mad Khan adjusted during his lifetime appears to be natural. The disputed shop is again ideally suited for the proposed business of Fahim Ahmad Khan. The evidence of the respondent is challenged mainly on the ground that Fahim Ahmad Khan, a student for whom the premises is needed did not step into the witness‑box to give support to the evidence of respondent, There is no rule of law that bona fides being a subjective matter can only be proved by the person for whom the premises is required. The fact that Fahim mad Khan was a student also does not militate against the bona fides of the respondent.

10. An attempt was also made to show that the respondent was mainly interested in getting the rent of the premises enhanced. Admittedly the appellant L4 in pupation of this shop for the last 12 years and an increase of rent from Rs.250 p.m. to Rs.400 p.m. during his period at no stretch of imagination can 1e said to be unreasonable. This increase was again made with the Consent *of the appellant. The plea that the respondent wanted to enhance root at the rate of Rs.1,000 p.m. soon after the increase of rent from Rs.250 p.m. to Rs.400 p.m., appears to be absurd on the face of it. If the respondent wanted to raise the rate of rent from Rs.250 p.m. to Rs.1,000 p.m, he could not have entered into a written agreement of tenancy thereby fixing the rate of rent at Rs.400 p.m.

11. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the material on the record my ,occlusion is that the respondent has made out a case under clause (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the issue of personal requirement was rightly decided in his favour.

12. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Two months' time is, however, allowed to appellant to vacate the demised premises. H.B.T./A‑1300/K Appeal dismissed.