1992 PLP 2442 (MLD)

Sheikh Muhammad Usman, the respondent herein, on 3‑4‑1982 filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller at Hyderabad seeking ejectment of the appellant Arfan from his shop bearing No.F/47‑15_5 situated at Lajpat Road, Hyderabad, Sindh. The respondent claimed ejectment of the appellant as according to him he required the said shop in good faith for the occupation and use of his grown‑up son Tariq Usman for doing business and that the appellant had made some alterations and additions to the rented premises without his permission. The appellant did not dispute the tenancy or amount of rent payable by him but resisted the application mainly on the ground that respondent owned another shop situated at Bhai Khan Incline where he was doing business with his son. He also denied that he had in any manner impaired utility of the rented premises in question. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller formulated following 3 points for consideration:‑‑‑ (1) Whether the applicant requires the premises in good faith for the use and occupation of his son? (2) Whether the opponent has made alterations in the disputed shop? (3) What should the order be? The respondent (landlord) examined himself and his son Tariq Usman for whom he required the premises while appellant examined himself and his two witnesses. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties answered point No.1 in affirmative while according to him point No.2 was not proved and he allowed the application by his judgment passed on 6‑12‑1983 directing the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months. Being aggrieved by this judgment the appellant has filed this Appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Mr. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant, contended that in the year 1979 the respondent had filed an application seeking ejectment of the appellant on similar grounds which was dismissed for non‑prosecution and under the circumstances the respondent was not entitled to seek ejectment of the appellant through another application. He then contended that respondent has not given particulars of his requirement in para. 4 of his application before the Rent Controller and he is not entitled to succeed in the case. All that has been said by respondent is that applicant required the said shop in good faith for occupation and use of his son Tariq Usman for .doing business. lie referred to the cases reported in 1989 CLC 287; 1990 CLC 904, 1064 and 1644; 1991 CLC 1029 and 1850; 1992 CLC

482. Mr. Muhammad Umar Dawoodi, Advocate for the respondent, contended that the appellant was not able to succeed in shattering the evidence of respondent and his son to show that the premises in dispute were not required by the landlord as claimed by him. According to him the pleadings had to be brief and statement in para. 4 is sufficient to put the appellant on notice of his case that he needed the shop in question for the requirement of his son. He further contended that the earlier case filed by him, which was dismissed due to non‑prosecution would not operate as res judicata. On the first point he referred to the cases reported in PLD 1976 Kar. 832; 1988 SCMR 819; 1989 SCMR 1366; 1990 SCMR 1070; 1992 SCMR 1152; 1992 MLD 903 and 1225. On the second point he referred to the cases reported in 1991 CLC 522 and 1636. The respondent Sheikh Muhammad Usman had in his affidavit in evidence stated that he needed the shop in good faith for the occupation and use of his grown‑up son Tariq Usman for doing business. It is true that he did not give any more particulars than what is stated there regarding the ability of his son to carry on business or his financial resources for the purpose. But his .such statement is sufficient to indicate that the premises was required for the use of his son for doing business. Under the circumstances it was upto the appellant to have cross‑examined him to show that the premises was not so required. On this point the only suggestion that was made to him was that in fact the premises was not needed by him for the use of his son but was intended to enhance the rent. Such suggestion was denied by the respondent. Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 makes no provision requiring the landlord to disclose the detailed particulars of his requirement. Under the circumstances failure of a landlord to state the particulars of nature of business which a landlord intends to carry out in the required premises will not be fatal to his case. Once a landlord states in his evidence that the premises is needed in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of the children, sufficient compliance shall be deemed to have been made under the relevant provision of law. Under such circumstances it will be open to the tenant to shatter his such statement by cross‑examining him about requirement of the premises and if he succeeds in bringing out on record certain facts which can indicate that in fact the premises was not required for the purpose and is not in good faith, the tenant can always succeed. In the present case no such questions have been put to the respondent and he has not been able to shatter the evidence given by the respondent (since deceased) and his son. By taking such a view I am fortified by the judgment passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Khawaja Imran Ahmed v. Noor Ahmed and another published ins 1992 SCMR 1152. This judgment and other judgments referred to by the. Advocate for the respondent had by now finally settled the principles touching the provision contained in section 15(2i(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It was for such reasons that I had by my short order passed on 23‑8‑1992 dismissed the appeal. H.B.T./A‑1253/K Appeal dismissed.