MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN SOOMRO

Appellant Muhammad Ayub Khan, who is landlord, has filed this appeal against the impugned order, dated 29th October, 1979 passed by the Rent Controller II, Karachi, whereby he has dismissed application for eject ment filed by the appellant before him against respondent, who is tenant.

Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the disputed House No. 197/18, Samanabad, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi is owned by the landlord in which respondent is the sitting tenant. Rate of rent payable is Rs. 175 p. m. Landlord filed application for ejectment of tenant under section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground that he requires the demised premises for his personal need and that of his family members and that at present he is residing in one room of the house of his father‑in‑law. The tenant in his written statement before the Rent Controller opposed the plea of the landlord and stated that the demand or restoration of disputed premises on the ground of personal need is not bona fide and the landlord has refused to accept the rent and wanted enhanced rent and applied several tactics to harass the tenant to vacate the house.

2. Before the Rent Controller landlord examined himself and stated that he has 8 members of family out of whom 5 children are major. He is residing with his father‑in‑law in P. I. B. Colony in one room and all the members of the family sleep on the floor. He denied the allegation that he wanted to increase the rent. Landlord also examined his father‑in‑law namely Iftikhar Ali, who has stated before the Rent Controller in evidence that the landlord is his son‑in‑law and lives with his family in his quarter in which there are only 2 rooms. In rebuttal the tenant namely Muhammad Suleman Soomro examined himself before the Rent Controller. He has stated that the landlord wanted to increase the rent and on that account he refused to accept the rent and also refused to accept Money Orders after which he started depositing the rent in the Court.

3. The question which arises for consideration is that whether the demand of landlord that he requires the rented premises for his personal need and those of his family members is bona fide or not ? No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what evidence is to be produced by the landlord but some principles are stated in the judgment of my learned brother Ajmal Mian, J. to the case of Muhammad Younus v. Dr. S. Muzammil Ali (1981 C L C 327) which can be kept in view as guidelines. It appears that landlord has to produce evidence that his requirement is bona fide and made in good faith and on the other hand the tenant has to prove bad faith on the part of landlord. In such circumstances burden of proof can be discharged by the tenant by proving any facts indicating lack of good faith on the part of landlord.

4. In the instant case the assertion of the landlord is that he has a family of 8 members including 3 sons and 3 daughters and they all live in the house of his father‑in‑law in one of the 2 rooms available with him. He needs the rented house for his personal need and that of his family members. This statement is given by the landlord on oath before the Rent Controller. The landlord has also examined his father‑in‑law who has stated that land lord lives with him in his quarter in which there are only 2 rooms. In the cross‑examination of the landlord, there does not appear to be much dispute with regard to the fact that the landlord with his family members is living in one of the 2 rooms of the house of his father‑in‑law. On the other hand it appears that landlord in his cross‑examination has stated that the house in dispute was rented out to the tenant through S. A. Rehman, Pro prietor of "Al‑Imran Drugs and General Store". A suggestive question was put to landlord that he wanted increase in the rent but the suggestion has been denied. Landlord has also stated in his cross‑examination that the house of his father‑in‑law belongs to his wife, who is stepmother of his wife. There is nothing more in the cross‑examination to show that need of the landlord is not bona fide or it was not made in good faith. On the other hand it appears in the cross‑examination of the tenant that he did not know about the children of the landlord and that how many children of the land lord have become grown up. The fact as asserted by the tenant that he was inducted in possession by S. A. Rehman and paid some rent to him is also not material for the reason that subsequently the tenant started paying rent to the landlord himself and further that the tenant does not deny the title of the landlord. The fact as asserted by the tenant that landlord has refused to accept the rent because he wanted to increase the rent is not substantiated by the tenant. Refusal of landlord to accept the rent and action of the tenant in depositing the rent in the Court also do not show that the landlord refused to accept the rent because he wanted to increase the, rent. According to the landlord he wanted the vacant possession because he needed rented premises for his personal use. Tenant in his written state ment has stated that landlord brought Malik Muhammad Akhtar, who professed to be the Uncle of Military Officer and threatened the tenant of dire consequences if he did not vacate the house. Tenant has produced copy of the Police Report which he had lodged. Copy of this report has been produced by the tenant in his evidence before the Rent Controller as Exh. O.

14. Contents of this documents do not indicate that landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the premises as he wanted enhancement of rent. This document only shows that the tenant had alleged that the landlord wanted his eviction. Moreover, even this report is just a plain copy and bears no seal or certification by the concerned police station. No evidence is produced by the tenant to prove the fact that such report was really lodged at the police station. It is just the copy of that application addressed to the Incharge Gulberg Police Station. Even the scribe of this report has not been produced. In these circumstances analysis of the evidence produced by the parties clearly shows that need of the landlord is bona fide and is made in good faith. On the other hand, the tenant has not been able to produce any evidence to substantiate his allegation that the need was not bona fide and was not made in good faith.

5. That for the facts and reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned order and grant ejectment. Respondent /tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the appellant/landlord within three months from the date of this judgment. In the result the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H Appeal allowed.