MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs MUHAMMAD MISKEEN (DECD.) through LRs and others

ORDER

GULZAR AHMED, J.---The petitioner is tenant in respect of demise shop. The respondent No,1 being landlord had filed ejectment application on the ground that shop is required by him for his personal bona fide use. The ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that respondent No,1 was unable to establish his personal bona fide use of demise shop.

The respondent No,1 filed First Rent Appeal, which was allowed by the appellate court against which petitioner filed Constitution Petition in the High Court, which by the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2018. was dismissed.

2. Learned ASC for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is tenant of demise shop since 1963 and that all sons of respondent No,1 for whom the shop is claimed by respondent No,1 arc employed besides other premises are available with respondent No,1 in which he could do his business.

3. We have considered the submissions of learned ASC and have gone through the record of the case.

4. In the impugned judgment, the Court has dealt with such aspect. which has been highlighted before us by learned ASC for the petitioner. which is as follows:- "Now adverting to the issue of personal bona fide need, it seems that respondent No,1 has specifically stated in pars II of his affidavit in evidence that he requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use in good faith to establish his son's business of laundry. According to him, he has five sons who are jobless, as such, premises in question is required by him for his personal bona fide need. On the other hand. the plea raised by the petitioner/tenant is that out of five sons, two sons namely Navid and Abid are carrying on the business of hotel, whereas Saleh Mohammad is a taxi driver, while other two sons namely Tahir and Javaid are working in the hotel and the bakery respectively and none of his sons is jobless. Such assertion of the petitioner has adequately been explained by respondent No,1 in his cross-examination as under: "It is correct that my both sons Naveed and Abid are running business of hotel. The hotel belongs to me and my both sons are helping with me and also working in my hotel. It is correct that Shakhi was running tax No, PL-4207. Vol. Says now he has left that job due to his illness and now he is jobless. It is correct that Jawaid was working in bakery. Vol. Says now he is not working in any bakery as same was not in his own bakery, he is ousted out from his job of bakery... It well settled principle of law that sole testimony of the landlord is sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need, if the statement of the landlord on oath is consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application. Reference in this context can he made of the case of Mehdi Nasir Rizvi v. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui 'reported in 2000 SCMR 1613. In A the instant case the petitioner could not succeed to shake/shatter the evidence of the respondent on this point. Even otherwise, it is not necessary that the applicant must establish that the premises in question is required for the personal bona fide used of all his five sons. It is sufficient under the law if he succeeds in establishing that the premises in question is required for personal bona fide need of only one of his sons.

Yet another plea has been raised by the petitioner that respondent No,1 has rented out other shops to different tenants besides the shop in question, as such the requirement of the premises in question by the respondent is not bona fide and in good faith. In this connection, suffice it to say that apart from the fact that the petitioner has to produce any documentary evidence in support of such plea, it is a well settled principle of law that it is the sole choice and prerogative of thelindlord to choose the premises which better suits to him as he is the best judge of this personal need and he is not under any legal obligation to act upon dictation of the tenant. If any authority is needed, reference can be made of the cases reported as Jehangri Rustam Kakalia through its legal heirs v. Messrs Hashwani Sales and Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (2002 SCMR 241) and Bata Pakistan Limited v. Mohammad Nawaz (1996 CLC 959). In this view of the matter, it may be observed that the respondent has also succeeded in proving the issue of personal bona fide need in his favour."

5. The observation of High Court in the impugned judgment as has been read by us apparently is not suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence or any of the record and further appears to be in accordance with the principle of law laid down and enunciated by this court in its various judgments amongst which some are referred to by the High Court in the impugned judgment. No illegality, perversity or impropriety is found in the impugned judgment. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.