ATAUR REHMAN Versus Sheikh KHUSHI MUHAMMAD

1. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, ‑1979 is filed by the appellant/landlord against the order of Rent Controller dated 29th March, 1986. By the impugned order the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application filed by the appellant against the respondent on the ground of personal bona ride requirement. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Rent Controller while disallowing the ejectment application on the ground that the appellant had failed to utilize another flat in the same building on the 1st floor which had fallen vacant during the pendency of the ejectment case and was let out to another person on higher rent, failed to notice that the premises in respect whereof the application for eviction was filed by the appellant was situated on the ground floor .and was more suitable to the needs and requirement of appellant as compared to the premises on the first floor which had fallen vacant but was let out. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the appellant had the right to select any one of the several buildings' owned by him and this prerogative of landlord was not subject to any control by the Rent Controller. It is true that the landlord can select any one of the several buildings owned by him for his needs and this choice is to be made by him alone, but in a case of the present kind where another building owned by the landlord fell vacant and the landlord does not occupy the same, he must assign reason for not doing so. In such circumstances, the burden will be on the landlord to show to the Controller that the building which fell vacant was not suitable for his needs application in respect of the premises for which eviction is sought. In the present case there is nothing in the evidence of appellant to show that the premises on the first floor which fell vacant during the pendency of above rent case, was in any way not suitable for occupation by the appellant or his family members. It is an admitted position on record that after the above flat fell vacant during pendency of ejectment case, it was let out on higher rent to another person by the appellant. In these circumstances, the burden of proof of personal and bona fide requirement was not discharged by the appellant and as such the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application for eviction filed by appellant. There is no merit m this appeal, which=is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.

2. M.Y.H./A‑325/K

3. Appeal dismissed.