NAIMA KHATOON Versus SHAMIMUDDIN

1. This order will govern the disposal of F.R. As. Nos. 175 and 176 of 1983. Both these appeals are filed by the landlord /appellant against the order of Rent Controller rejecting her two rent applications for eviction of the tenant Shamimuddin from three shops let out to him. In her application before the Rent Controller the appellant sought eviction of the respondent from the three shops on grounds that the shops were let out for the purposes of running a business whereas they have been converted into a workshop for carrying out repairing, denting and painting of cars. That the tenant/ respondent had removed the partition wall which was existing in between the shops 2 and 3 without permission of landlady/ appellant and lastly that the shops were needed by the appellant /landlady for her personal bona fide requirement. It is an admitted position that shops 1 and 2 were let out to the respondent under an agreement, dated 1‑12‑1969 initially at the rent of Rs.350 but gradually the rent was increased and the present rent payable in respect of shops 1 and 2 is Rs.600 per month. Shop No. 3 was let out to the respondent on 19‑7‑1974 at the rent of Rs.200 per month. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that in none of the two agreements there is any positive covenant prohibiting respondent from carrying out business of such nature. In the absence of such covenant in the lease agreement the Rent Controller rightly rejected the ground of conversion of the premises. The second ground urged in the application related to the removal of a partition wall its between the shops 2 and 3. The appellant failed to produce any evidence in that regard and therefore, the Rent Controller rightly rejected this ground as well. The third ground urged in support of eviction application related to the personal and bona fide requirement of the appellant. The Rent Controller while considering the above issue came to the conclusion that the applications suffered from lack of bona fide prior to the filing of applications the appellant had demanded further increase in the rent of the premises to which the respondent did not agree and in support of this conclusion that Rent Con troiler referred to the evidence of the husband of the appellant who was summoned as a Court witness and who admitted before the Court that he had prepared the draft agreement Exh. 2/1. In this draft agreement, it is shown that the rent of the premises from October, 1977 to December, 1978, will be Rs. 500 per month. From January, 1978 to December, 1978 Rs.600 per month and from January, 1979 to December, 1979 at the rate of Rs.800 per month and from January, 1980 till expiry of lease agreement at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month. It was the case of the respondent before the Rent Controller that he did not agree to the above proposal of the landlady/appellant and therefore, the applications for his eviction were filed before the Rent Controller. The contention of the respondent finds sufficient support from the evidence of the appellant's husband who was examined a Court witness. Apart from it the eviction of the respondent on the ground of personal bona fide requirement was sought by the appellant on the ground that she has set up a business alongwith her two sons, therefore, she needed the premises for her personal and bona fide need. In cross‑examination she admitted that one of her sons was a medical student while the other was studying in Engineeging College. It is also an admitted position that the business which was formed in the year 1978 was being run at a place which it described in the document of partnership and as well as in the certificate of registration as 124‑A , P . E. C . H . S . Karachi and it has nowhere been contended by the appellant in her evidence that the premises where the business is being run was not suitable for running said business. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller was fully justified in dis-beiliveing personal bona fide requirement urged by the appellant and rightly rejected the applications on this ground as well. No case for interference is made out. Both these appeals are accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.

2. A . A . Appeals dismissed.