AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI Versus MUHAMMAD YAQINUDDIN

1. USMAN ALI SHAH, J. ‑‑This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 17‑7‑1986, whereby the order, dated 31‑3‑1985 of the learned Sixth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Karachi for ejectment of ,the respondent was set aside.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant is the owner of a shop bearing No.4/10 of situated in Commercial area Liaqatabad, Karachi. The shop in question was rented by the appellant to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.300. The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent, under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, in the Court of the learned Rent Controller Karachi, on the plea that he attained the age of 60 years and also required the premises for his personal use. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence in the case decided it in favour of the appellant, vice his order, dated 31‑3‑1985.

3. Aggrieved by the order, dated 31‑3‑1985 of the Rent Controller, the respondent filed a First Rent Appeal in the High Court of Sind. The learned Judge of the High Court, after hearing the arguments held that the appellant has failed to prove conclusively that his age was 60 years at the time of filing of the ejectment application and the case of the appellant cannot fall within the purview of section 14 of the Ordinance. The learned Judge of the High Court by his order, dated 17‑7‑1986, allowed the appeal.

4. The leave in this case was granted to examine the propriety of the judgment of the High Court.

5. We have heard the appellant who is present in person and the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant has contended that the learned Judge of the High Court has erred in law by failing to ascertain the age of the appellant from the National Identity Card. The National Identity Card is issued under section 5 of the National Registration Act of 1973. It is issued after full inquiry is made. It is a public document and has got probative value. Presumption of truth is attached to it and can be considered as an evidence. The assertion of the appellant herein is supported by the identity card as a corroborative evidence. On the other side, the respondent did not produce any evidence that the appellant is below 60 years of age. Mere oral assertion is not sufficient to rebut the documentary evidence. The respondent initially denied the ownership and now has come with the argument, which was never raised before the High Court, that the appellant is occupying another shop. As such the points never raised before the High Court cannot be permitted to be raised before this Court. (1975 S C M R 178 refers). For personal use of the premises, the statement of the appellant alongwith the documentary evidence is sufficient to prove the good faith for requirement of the premises in question.

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, the judgment of the High Court dated 17‑7‑1986 is set aside and that of the Rent Controller, dated 31‑3‑1985 restored. The respondent shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question within two months from the date of the order to the appellant without recourse to execution proceedings as undertaken by him.

7. M.Y.H./A‑186/S Appeal allowed.