1992 PLP 1799 (SCMR)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, who is a tenant in respect of Shop No.70 A1 Amna Plaza, Opposite Capri Cinema, 130 Depot Lines. MA. Jinnah Road, Karachi has sought leave to appeal against the order of learned Judge in Chamber of the Sindh High Court dated 18‑2‑1992. By the impugned order the learned Judge in Chamber maintained the order of eviction passed against the petitioner by Additional Rent Controller on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement and impairment of the value and utility of the building. The eviction application was filed before the Additional Rent Controller Cantonment, under section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be called as Act only) on the ground of default in payment of rent for the month of August, 1988; Telephone Bill amounting to Rs.7,592, bona fide personal requirement of the respondent landlady of the shop for her own use and alteration and addition in the premises which had impaired the value and utility of the shop. The Rent Controller granted the application on all the abovementioned 3 grounds but in appeal the learned Judge in Chamber reversed the findings on the ground of default in payment of rent but maintained the eviction order on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the shop by the respondent, landlady as well as the impairment of the value and utility of the premises on ground of unauthorised alteration and addition made in the shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that there was no satisfactory evidence on record to establish personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent as the respondent is a working lady and her husband is seaman who remains away from the house for several months together on account of his occupation. Learned Counsel also contended that the respondent was already in possession of another Shop No.76 in the building which was lying vacant and, therefore, she could not claim the possession of another shop which was occupied by the petitioner unless she was able to establish that the shop which was lying vacant was not suitable for her requirement. There are 2 concurrent findings of facts both on' the plea of personal and bona, fide requirement of the shop by the respondent as well as impairment of the value and utility of the shop premises on account of unauthorized construction. Such concurrent findings of the facts could only be interfered with by this Court, if there is any misreading of evidence by the Courts below or the Courts have arrived at the findings ignoring any material piece of evidence on record. We have gone through the evidence of respondent's husband in the case and we find that the suggestions given to this witness by the petitioner's counsel in cross‑examination that he was carrying on business of pet‑birds in Shop No.70 and 76 was denied by him. He also denied the suggestion that Shop No.76 in the building belongs to respondent. The learned counsel very vehemently urged before us that the respondent's husband was confronted with Ex‑Aw‑8 which was a receipt in respect of Shop No.76 and the witness admitted the signature of his wife. However, this admission is not sufficient to hold that Shop No.76‑ was lying vacant and that the respondent was the owner of the shop. The learned Judge in Chamber while dealing with the question of personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent observed as follows:‑‑ "So far as the finding as to requirement of the premises for personal use of the landlady is concerned, the respondent's attorney, who is also her husband, has stated on oath that the shop in question is required by the respondent for carrying on the business of `Snack Bars'. The appellant's counsel has cross‑examined the respondent's husband on his point, but could not shake his testimony. By now the settled law is that it is enough to state on oath that the landlady requires the rented premises for her bona fide personal use and to withstand test of cross examination successfully. No further evidence is required to be given y her. This proposition is so well settled that it requires no authority to be cited in its support. The appellant's counsel has placed reliance in the cases of (1) Mrs. Nadira Farooqi v. District and Sessions Judge 1987 MLD 616, (2) Mrs. Rafiqa Begum v. Mrs. Mahmooda Wahidina PLD 1987 Kar. 287 and (3) Raja Shahbaz Khan v. Muhammad Fazal Kiani 1968 CLC 811 which do not apply to this case. The appellant's counsel has contended that the respondent was in occupation of Shop No.70 which was adjacent to this shop and was lying vacant and has confronted her Attorney with the receipt of rent which the respondent had received for this shop. The Attorney of the respondent has admitted that the receipt is signed by his wife, but has denied that the shop belongs to his wife. Respondent's counsel Mr. Syed Ziauddin Nasir stated from the Bar that in fact the shop belongs to the mother of the respondent, who is alive and not to the respondent. The burden to prove that the shop belongs to the respondent and is in her occupation, was on the appellant which she has failed to discharge." The above reasoning of the learned Judge in Chamber does not suffer from any infirmity. Similarly, while dealing with the question of impairment of the value and utility of the building, the learned Judge reached the conclusion that the additions and alterations made in the premises were unauthorized, as they were made without the permission of the respondent landlady. The learned Judge also came to the conclusion that the additions and alterations made in the shop are likely to impair the utility of shop. The above finding given by the learned Judge in Chamber is based on the admission of the petitioner, that he had made additions and alterations without consent and permission of the respondent. No exception can be taken to the above findings of the learned Judge in Chamber. There is no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. However, petitioner is allowed 6 months' time to vacate the premises on the condition that the rent for this period of 6 months will be deposited in advance within 2 months, from today, and that in case the petitioner failed to vacate the premises after expiry of period of 6 months, the Rent Controller will issue writ of ejectment against the petitioner without any further notice and the same will be executed, if necessary, with Police aid. A.A./Y‑23/S Leave refused.