1991 PLP 2129 (MLD)

First Rent Appeal No.429 of 1988, decided on 24th May, 1988.

Ss. 15 & 21

Ejectment of tenant on ground of personal bona fide requirement of landlord and his family

Shop in question, being part of residential building was occupied by tenant

Landlord's plea was that by removing the wall between the residential premises and the shop occupied by tenant, residential premises could be converted into one compact house for the, residence of family members

Ejectment of tenant was ordered by Rent Controller

Validity

Tenant had contended that two of the shops in the same premises owned by landlord having been vacated during ejectment proceedings, were not occupied by tenant

No question, however, was asked by tenant in cross-examination of landlord that the shops vacated during pendency of ejectment application could be converted into residential premises in the same manner as claimed by landlord in respect of the shop in question

In absence of any such evidence, even if those shops were rented out landlord's claim could not be deemed to be lacking in bona fides

Landlord's bona fide requirement, however, had been fully established on record

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Sohail H.K. Rana for Appellant. The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant in respect of a shop occupied by him as a tenant. There are five shops in a row which are part of a residential building. The residential portion is occupied by the respondent and he claims ejectment on the ground that this shop is required for his bona fide personal need and residence of his family members which consists of his wife and grown-up children. It --was also stated that by removing the wall between the residential premises and the shop occupied by the appellant, it can be converted into one compact house for the residence of the family members. The learned Controller granted ejectment application. Mr. Rana the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that one shop as mentioned in the report of the Commissioner was vacated in the year 1984 during the pendency of the case, but it was not occupied by the respondent. The learned counsel also states that another Shop No.5 was also vacated and rented out to other tenant. However, from the record, it is clear that no question was asked by the appellant in cross-examination that these shops could be converted into residential premises in the same manner as claimed by the respondent in respect of the shop in dispute. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, even if those shops were rented out, it is difficult to believe that the claim of the respondent lacks bona tides. So far the respondent's bona fide requirement is concerned, it has been fully established on record. The appeal is, therefore dismissed in limine. The appellant should vacate the premises within six months. AA./S-757/K Appeal dismissed.