MUKHTAR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM BAKHSHI

' Appellant Mukhtar Ahmed initiated proceedings for the ejectment of respondent Muhammad Saleem Bakhsh from his shop bearing No,37, Block 5, "C" Area, Liaquatabad, Karachi. Initially grounds of, default in payment, of rent and requirement of the premises for persona) bona fide use of the landlord were pleaded as the grounds of ejectment. During the course of the proceedings the ground of default was abandoned and the appellant confined his claim for ejectment on the sole ground of the requirement of the premises for his personal bona fide use.

' Averments made in the ejectment application were denied by the Opponent (tenant).

' The appellant and the respondent examined themselves in support of their respective cases.

' The Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (West) by his order passed in Rent Case No,2191/85 on 23-5-1987 dismissed the ejectment application. According to the findings recorded by the Rent Controller the appellant had failed to establish his personal bona fide need. Being aggrieved by this order the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. Mr. Munawar Ali, Advocate for the appellant, contended that the statement of the appellant clearly stating that the shop premises were required by him for his personal bona fide use is sufficient to establish his case in terms of Section 15(2)(viii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In support of his such contention he has referred to cases reported in 1990 SCMR 1070; PLD 1990 SC 394; 1980 SCM R 593 and 1980 SCM R 384.

3. Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Advocate appearing for the respondent, contended that the appellant did not discharge his burden of proving that the premises were required by him for his personal bona fide use. He has referred to para.3 of the ejectment application which merely states that the "shop was required for the personal use of the appellant." Similarly in his affidavit-in-evidence he has used the same words. According to him, such a scanty statement would not enable any authority to conclude that the premises in question were actually needed by the landlord for his personal bona fide use. In order to support his contention he has referred to the cases reported in 1988 CLC 1041; 1986 CLC 448 and 1986 CLC 1100.

4. In order to deprive a tenant of his valuable rights of tenancy in respect of commercial premises the landlord is required to establish his good faith and reasonable need of the said premises by some cogent evidence. In the present case not only that the evidence is scanty but all that has been stated by the landlord is that he needs the premises for his bona fide use. He even failed to provide particulars of the business that he intended to start in the disputed premises. In order to succeed in ejecting a tenant of commercial premises the burden heavily lies on the landlord to at least establish his good faith and bona fide requirement of the premises in question.

In a case where a landlord makes up his mind to start a business after he has let out a commercial premises he will be required to give full particulars of B his proposed business, availability of the capital that may be needed for the purpose, his experience or knowledge of business in such details that a Court can come to the conclusion that it is needed bona fide for the use of the landlord. In absence of such details it will not be possible for a Rent Controller to record such a finding.

' In the present case the appellant himself has not given any such particulars and remained content with merely a short statement that he needs it for his use. Under the circumstances the assessm ent of evidence by the Rent Controller is unexceptionable and I see no reason to disturb his finding.

' This appeal in view of above is dismissed.