KHALID BROTHERS Versus SAJID HUSAIN
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.--- The respondent No.1/applicant filed an ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, being Rent Case No. 421/2011, averring therein that he was the owner/landlord and the petitioners/opponents were the tenant in respect of the shops bearing Nos. 4 and 5, constructed over Plot No. L-9, situated in Sector 11-C/1, Sir Syed Town, North Karachi 'Township, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the "demised premises") by virtue of tenancy agreement dated 03.07.1985. It was the case of the respondent No.1 that he required the demised premises for personal bona fide need of his son, namely, Saad Hussain.
2. The petitioners resisted the ejectment application by filing written statement wherein they contended that there were five shops in the property of the respondent No.1, out of which, two shops were already in his possession, while the demised premises was not required to him for personal bona fide use of his son. The petitioner further contended that the respondent No.1 had been demanding increase in monthly rent, which was refused by them as they were increasing the same as per the terms of the tenancy.
3. After recording pro and contra evidence and hearing both the parties, the learned IVth Rent Controller, Karachi (Central) allowed the ejectment application, vide order dated 29.02.2012 directing the petitioners to vacate demised premises and handover its peaceful physical possession to the respondent No.1, within sixty (60) days. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred F.R.A. No. 114/2012 which was heard and dismissed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central), vide Judgment dated 30.01.2015. It is the Judgment that has been impugned by the petitioners in this instant Constitutional petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent No.1 claims the demised premises for personal bona fide use of his son, however, he has admitted in the evidence that his son is a student. He has further contended that ordinarily a landlord has the right and privilege to use his property in the manner he likes but the requirement of law is that when he seeks uprooting an old tenant, he must establish his requirement in perfect good faith and bona fide and mere desire, wish or whims on the part of landlord has never been considered to be sufficient and adequate to justify the eviction of a tenant on the so-called ground of personal requirement. He has also contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider that the previous ejectment applications filed by the respondent No.1 being Rent Case No.598/1998 on the ground of his own personal bona fide use and Rent Case No. 412/1996 on the ground of default were withdrawn after being agreed on the enhancement of the rent. He has maintained that the impugned judgment suffers from gross illegality; therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the cases of (1). Abde Ali v. Shaikh Hatim Bhaxi (2003 SCMR 730) (2). Nisar Hussain Rizvi and 3 others v. Mst. Aisha and 5 others (1998 CLC 349) (3). Muhammad Jaffar v. Syed Zia-ul-Islam Shah (1996 MLD 976) (4). Mst. Kulsoom v. Abdul Rasheed (1995 CLC 230) and (5). Tariq Mehmood v. Muhammad Asghar (1990 CLC 1214).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 while supporting the impugned judgment has contended that the petitioners have failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned Judgment and order as well as excess of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below. He has further contended that the ejectment proceedings were initiated against the petitioners to get the demised premises vacated, as the demised premises is needed to respondent No.1 for the personal bona fide use for his son and he does not want to rent out the same on higher rent and the respondent No.1 has successfully proved by adducing evidence. He has maintained that the respondent No.1 being owner and landlord of the demised premises could not be deprived of his right and interest to use his property in a manner most suited to his requirement. He has also contended that the earlier ejectment application was filed by the respondent No.1 in the year 1998 on the ground of his personal bona fide use while the present ejectment application was filed by him in the year 2011, after 13 years, for personal bona fide use of his son and no time limit can be fixed for changed circumstances for personal requirement. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has relied on the cases of Jehangir Rustam Kakalia through legal heirs v. Messrs Hashwani Sales and Services (Pvt.) Limited (2002 SCMR 241) and Muhammad Sharif v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (1991 SCMR 1917).
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It appears that the respondent No.1 owns five shops, constructed over the plot mentioned above. In shop No.1, the wife of respondent No.1 is running her beauty parlor under the name and style of "Hira's Beauty Parlor", in shop No. 2, the respondent No.1 is running his business of sports articles, shop No.3 has been converted into door/way to go-down, while shops Nos. 4 and 5, the demised premises, are under tenancy of petitioners. The respondent No.1 has specifically pleaded in para No. 6 of his ejectment application that the demised premises is required for his personal bona fide need for the use of his son, namely, Saad Hussain. In para Nos. 4 and 11 of his affidavit-in-evidence, the respondent No.1 has further stated that his said son is jobless; therefore, he desires that his son would start his business of general store so that he may earn his livelihood and that he is neither demanding for higher rent nor would rent out the demised premises to any other person after its vacation. He has appeared in the witness box and his evidence appears to be consistent with his pleadings. The petitioners, on the contary, failed to disprove the statement of the respondent No.1 in rebuttal.
8. No hard and fast rule could be laid down for quantum and quality of evidence to prove bona fide need of landlord for seeking eviction of tenant. Statement of landlord on oath is sufficient to prove his personal requirement if it could satisfy a prudent mind that such requirement does exist. The two Courts below have come to the conclusion that the demised premises is required by the respondent No.1 for personal bona fide use of his son, and therefore, the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge cannot be disturbed in this petition.
9. It is now settled principle of law that the landlord has the absolute right to acquire and deal with his property in the manner best suited to him and a tenant has no right to disentitle him of his valuable right to acquire, deal and possess his property which right is again guaranteed by the Article 23 of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Mehdi Nasir Rizvi v. Muhammad Usman Siddiqui (2000 SCMR 1613).
10. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable so far the facts of the case in hand are concerned. I, therefore, find no merit in this Constitutional petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 10.12.2015, whereby the instant Constitution petition was dismissed with directions to the petitioners/tenants to vacate the demised premises within 60 days.
ZC/K-4/Sindh Petition dismissed.