MUMTAZ AHMAD Versus ABDUL MAJID

1. This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 28-2-1984 of XIV Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller at Karachi, whereby the rent application of the appellant is dismissed.

2. The rent case No.1459/80, was filed by the appellant, Mumtaz Ahmad, on default and personal bona fide requirement. The appellant is owner of shop Liaquatabad, Commercial Area, near Firdous Cinema, Karachi, at the rate of Rs30 per month. Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed following four issues:-

(1) Whether applicant ejectment applicator is not maintainable?

(2) Whether shop No.4/51, in Liaquatabad is required by the applicant for his personal use?

3. Whether opponent is wilful defaulter in payment of monthly rent to the applicant?

(4) What should the order be?

4. He decided all the issues against the appellant.

5. Mr.S.M. Afzal pressed only one issue of personal bona fide requirement and submitted that appellant is an old man and has retired from service, therefore, he wants shop for his personal bona fide .use and his grownup son Aziz Ahmed will work in this shop. It is argued that personal bona fide requirement has been proved and Mr. Afzal has relied on the case sported in PLD 082 Quetta 49: 1983 SCMR 1311: 1985 C L C 2094: 1986 C L C 7101: 1983 CLC 7139 and 1984 CLC 50.

6. Respondent and his counsel are not present. There is no request for adjournment. Learned counsel is from Karachi and this rent appeal was adjourned at the request of the Advocate for respondent on 25-11-1986, to a date in office. Came up for hearing on 16-12-1986, and again adjourned as none was present due to curfew. Again came up for hearing on 20-1-1987. Mr. Afzal, learned counsel for the appellant informed that Mr. Talib was seen in the Court premises, therefore, it is clear that learned counsel deliberately remained absent and this is a rent case of 1980, therefore, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. The Rent Controller in his order has dismissed the application on personal bona fide requirement on the grounds that there are many contradictions between the statements (sic) running his business in the premises for the last about 12/13 years and might have establishment well his business there. He stated in the order that admittedly the appellant is .of an advanced age and is ailing. Therefore, it appears that the appellant as well as his son does not require the rented premises for their own use.

8. Before the Rent Controller, Aziz Ahmad, son of the appellant was examined who stated that he is doing the business but has no place to sit anywhere. He would work with his father in his shop. He stated in cross-examination that he is doing the job as the artist on contract .Appellant, Mumtaz, in his evidence stated that Aziz Ahmad is grown-up son who will work with him in the shop and shop premises is required by the appellant and his son for personal and bona fide use. Respondent, Abdul Majeed, in his evidence on this issue stated that appellant is quite well off and his children are earning members. The appellant is pressing had for increase of rent. He has stated that appellant does trot require shop as he is old and crippled one. He has stated that he has established his business. He stated that Rent Case No. 3599/79, was also filed by the appellant, which was contested and dismissed on 3-5-1980, when this rent case was filed on 5-3-1980, during the pendency of old case. He produced two carbon copies of the Rent Application No.3599/79. The Rent Case No. 3599/79, was pending and in that case, it appears from Ex. 'D', the ground for personal bona fide was taken in pare. No.4, of the rent application. It is clear that during the pendency of that rent case, a fresh rent case was filed on 5-3-1980, and one of the grounds in the rent application is that of personal bona fide requirement. Simultaneously, on 5-3 s 1980, it is an admitted position that another rent case was pending for the same cause of action, and on 3-6-1980, the Rent Case No.3599/79, was dismissed in default as neither the appellant appeared nor his counsel. No application for restoration of that rent case is filed. Today, even the learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the other issues. The Rent Controller has discussed these aspects of the case in detail. Not only this but Aziz Ahmad has denied that his father had filed any other rent case prior to the present case. Mumtaz himself has not admitted to have filed prior Rent Case No. 3599/79, while documents produced by the respondent clearly show that Rent Case No. 3599/79, was filed.

9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the rent case. Appeal having no merit, is dismissed.

10. M.Y.H/M-503/R. Appeal dismissed.