HAJI HABIB ULLAH-DEFENDANT Versus HAJI ABDUL HALIM (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS)

1. In this second appeal the original plaintiff died. An application for substitution of his heirs was filed but beyond time and C. R. No. 570(S) of 1968 was issued and the delay in filing the application for substitution condoned. There is an application for amendment of the petition for substitution filed on the 5th June 1968. The application is allowed. The rule. is made absolute and the heirs of the deceased plaintiff are brought on record. The rule for addition of parties viz. C. R. No. 571(S) of 1968 is discharged.

2. Though the appeal is not yet ready it is taken up for hearing at the request of the learned Advocate of both parties.

3. This second appeal is by the defendant. The plaintiff had brought a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the grounds that he is a defaulter and that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. The defence was that as the case was one in which the rent was being deposited before the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Ordinance, defendant was not a defaulter. With regard to the second ground the defence taken was that as the landlord has other premises in which he could extend his business the requirement of the landlord for the suit premises was not bona fide. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the tenant was a defaulter and rejected the ground of the landlord that the premises was required bona fide by the landlord for his own use and occupation.

4. The tenant appealed and the landlord filed a cross‑objection. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the tenant and allowed the cross‑objection of the landlord. Hence this second appeal.

5. Without going into question whether the tenant, is a defaulter or not it is sufficient that the landlord can show that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation. I have held in several cases that the Rent Control Ordinance has been enacted to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant owing to the acute scarcity of accommodation. According to the provision of this Ordinance the tenant is protected from eviction under certain conditions. That is to say, that the landlord will not be able to exercise his will of evicting the tenant provided prescribed conditions are fulfilled by the tenant. But the Legis lature recognised that if the landlord requires his premises for his own use and occupation the protection from eviction given to the tenant would not be available. As a final Court of fact the Court of appeal below has found that the landlord requires the suit if premises for his own use and occupation. Moreover, section 18(4) gives an opportunity to the tenant to re‑enter the premises or obtain damages if the landlord fails to fulfil the purpose for which eviction was sought.

6. In this circumstance, in my opinion, the decree passed by the appellate Court is sound and there is no case for modifying the same. The appeal is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs.

7. A. E. Appeal dismissed.