1993 PLP 2575 (MLD)

(ii) Whether the opponent has committed wilful default in payment of rent as alleged in application? (iii) Whether there was any promise that ‑the monthly rent be paid in a lump sum by the opponent when called upon by the applicant? If so, its effect ? (iv) Whether the applicant requires the premises for their personal bona fide need in good faith? (v) What should the order be?

4. The appellant examined Ikram Aziz (P.W.1) one of their officers and then closed the side. To rebut this evidence the respondents examined Muhammad Abdullah (D.W.1) one of their partners and then closed the side.

5. On the assessment of evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller decided all the main issues against the appellants vide order-dated 27‑7‑1989. It is ip these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed 6. 1 have heard Mr. Haider Raza Naqvi, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. HA. Rehmani, learned counsel for respondents. During the course of arguments Mr. Naqvi did not press Issue Nos.2 and 3 and has confined his arguments to issue No.4 only.

7. The appellants which is a Banking Company has sought the eviction of respondents from the disputed premises for the following reasons:‑‑ "That the applicant requires the premises also to store the stock of printed stationery and other materials used in the daily course of their business. That in view of the rapid growth of banking business in the country the applicant is suffering from short of proper accommodation for their personal bona fide need which is increasing day by day."

8. Ikram Aziz (P.W.1) who is the only witness examined on behalf of the appellants has testified about the needs of the bank in the following words:‑‑ "The bank requires the premises also for the purpose of storing the goods. The bank has no other premises for its need."

9. Besides the above vague and sketchy evidence there is no other evidence on record to prove that the bank requires the premises honestly. Since this question is primarily a question of fact the Court is entitled to look to every relevant fact in arriving to a just and proper decision. The appellants have taken different stands at different time. They pleaded in the application for ejectment that the disputed premises was needed for storing the stationery and other materials used for daily course of their business. Ikram Aziz (P.W.1) the officer of the bank, however, made an improvement in his evidence by stating that the disputed godown was required to store the goods pledged with the bank. During the course of arguments before the Rent Controller the appellants came forward with a new plea by stating that the said premises was required for the use of Head Office which was to be shifted there. Now; the evidence of Ikram Aziz (P.W.1) apart from it being of very unsatisfactory and unconvincing nature, is of very little, if any, value and may well be disregarded in view of its being vague and sketchy. To reach the conclusion that the premises are required by the landlords the Court must be satisfied about the reality of the claim. It is again necessary to see that the landlords do not under the pretext of personal requirement invade the right of the tenants to possess the premises while discharging their contractual/statutory obligations as a tenant.

10. Mr. Haider Raza Naqvi, learned counsel for the appellants has `'contended with force that Wain Aziz (P.W.1) was not expected to give details about the entire goods to be stored in the disputed premises. There is good deal of force in this observation. However, the burden of proof plays an important part in the discussion of evidence and the arriving at of a conclusion on the basis thereof, and if Ikram Aziz (P.W.1) was not able to place on record sufficient material on Issue No.4, the appellants could have examined the concerned officer of the bank to satisfy the Rent Controller that the needs of the bank were genuine. Since the appellants had failed to discharge the burden, the learned Rent Controller has rightly decided issue No.4 against them.

11. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./U‑138/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.