1983 PLP 2222 (CLC)

Akhtar Ali Mehmood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 11th August, 1982. This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 from the judgment of the Ilnd Rent Controller, Karachi dated 28th October, 1980, whereby he had accepted the ejectment applica tion of the respondent and directed the appellant to vacate the premises in dispute within a period of 119 days.

2. The premises in dispute is a shop situated in Liaquatabad, Karachi. It was rented out to the appellant at Rs. 50 per month. The case of the respondent before the learned Rent Controller was that the appellant is habitual defaulter and that the premises are required by the respondent for his personal use, because after his retirement he wants to run his own business in this shop. The respondent bad also alleged that the appellant had damaged the property and diminished its value. This plea, however, was not pressed before the learned Rent Controller.

3. Only two 'issues were framed regarding default in payment of rent and personal requirement of the respondent. The issue regarding default was decided in favour of the tenant. It was held by the learned Rent Controller that the appellant was not a defaulter but had been paying rent regularly. On the other issue the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent has proved his bona fide requirement and as such he was entitled to possession of the shop.

4. The respondent has also filed cross‑objections challenging the decision of the learned Rent Controller on the issue of default in payment of rent by the appellant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the question of default is concerned, the allegation of the respondent was that rent for the months of June, July and August, 1973 and March, 1974 has not been paid by the appellant. The plea of the appellant was that he bad offered the rent for these months to the respondent but he had refused to receive the same. Hence the rent was sent by money order. He has also produced the money order coupons. He further stated that on the refusal of the respondent to accept the rent, he made an application to the Rent Controller for depositing of rent and that he had deposited rent for these months in the Court of the Rent Controller. These averments of the appellant have not been controverted by the respondent in cross examination of the appellant. The learned Rent Controller was, there fore, justified in deciding the question of default in favour of the appellant.

6. On the question of personal requirement, the respondent has filed his affidavit and also the affidavits of Habib and Rustam Ali. He has also produced his pension‑book showing that he is a‑ retired teacher. The respondent has stated that he wants this shop for his own personal requirement. This statement is supported by the two witnesses produced by the respondent. On the basis of this statement the learned Rent Controller was satisfied that the bona fide personal requirement of the respondent has been proved.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent is a teacher and is not supposed to start a business and that after his retirement and before filing this ejectment application the respondent had been earning by tuition and coaching the students. He has further argued that the respondent has not disclosed the nature of the business which he wanted to run in this shop. It will suffice to say in this behalf that it was not necessary for the respondent to disclose the nature of the business. The fact that after his retirement he had been earning by tuitions, does not mean that he should be prevented from changing his vocation and adopt business as a means of his living. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, no substance.

8. So far as the question of bona fide personal requirement is concerned, it has been left the discretion of the learned Rent Controller. 1f he is satisfied from the statement of the landlord that the question of bona fide personal requirement is proved, then he would be justified in B granting the prayer .of the landlord In support of this view learned counsel for the respondent has relied on P L D 1976 Kar. 832 in which it has been held that the satisfaction of the Rent Controller as to bona fide requirement of the landlord is sufficient to order ejectment of the tenant provided that the plea of the landlord is consistent with his averments in the application and his statement is not shaken in cross‑examination or disproved in rebuttal. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the above case. The appellant had thoroughly cross‑examined the respondent and his witnesses, but he has not succeeded in extracting any thing favourable to him nor the plea has been disproved by producing any evidence worth the name in rebuttal. For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed with cost. The cross -objections filed by the respondent are also dismissed. The appellant is, however, given two months time to vacate the premises. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.