1. Respondent Abdul Rasheed and three other co-respondents/landlords filed an ejectment application against the petitioner Muhammad Shafi, on the ground that shop on the ground floor of city survey plot No,D 611 situated at Shikarpur Road, Sukkur was required for their personal use and occupation and also on the ground of default for 35 months i,e, from January, 1986 to November, 1988 and that the cause of action arose in the first month of 1986 when the petitioner failed to pay the rent, at the rate of Rs,200 per month which he used to pay; but after 1985 December, he failed to pay the rent and consequently the respondents were constrained to file ejectment application before the Rent Controller. The matter was contested by the petitioner- tenant, who in his written statement stated that he was a tenant of the shop in question since 1948, at the rate of Rs,20 per month which rent money he used to pay to Abdul Hameed, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. His case was that no written receipts used to be issued to him. He also denied that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent and also the personal bona fide use of the shop in question by the respondents. The learned Rent Contorller on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the opponent has committed wilful default in payment of rent?
(2) Whether the disputed shop required for personal use of the applicant No,3 in good faith after reconstruction?
(3) What should the order be?
2. The parties led evidence in support of their cases. Accordingly the respondents Abdul Rasheed and Abdul' Hafeez filed their own affidavits in support of their case whereas the petitioner-tenant Muhammad Shafi filed his own affidavit only in support of his case.
3. The learned Rent Controller found both the issues in favour of the respondents and allowed the application, directing the petitioner to vacate the disputed shop within three months from the date of the order. The petitioner filed F.R.A. No,53 of 1993 before this Court which in view of amendment vide Sindh Ordinance No,XIV of 2001 was sent to he District Judge for disposal in accordance' with law, where the F.R.A. was renumbered as Rent Appeal No,21 of 2000. In the appeal the order of the Rent Controller was maintained and the, petitioner's appeal was dismissed. Hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution (1973).
4. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner has mainly contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of the respondents and same were not properly noticed and appraised. Had the same been properly examined the decisions would have been the reverse to the impugned one. And that the two Courts below have acted in excess of their jurisdiction.
5. Reliance was placed on: 1988 CLC 1041, PLD 1985 Karachi 741 and 1983 CLC 237.
6. The contention on behalf of the respondents was that the learned lower Courts have properly exercised their jurisdiction and have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record. Reliance was placed upon: 2001 CLC 548; 2001 CLC 494 and 2001 MLD 548.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined their contentions. The respondent Abdul Hafeez has stated that "We require the said premises for personal boan fide need as I am working presently in a motor workshop at Sukka Talaab but now I ant to start my motor workshop in the said shop. That I am well-experienced and competent in the said mechanical work. I have sufficient money to start my workshop". He has further stated that the opponent-tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent since month of January till date. And that in spite of repeated requestes and promises the opponent has failed to pay the rent and arrears of the shop in question. Similar it the evidence of the respondent Abdul Rasheed. It has, however, come in cross-examination of the above two respondents that their father Abdul Hameed died in the year 1976. The opponent was a tenant at the rate of Rs,20 per month and he used to pay the rent at the same rate of Rs,20 to the respondent Abdul Rasheed regularly. It has also come in cross- examination that the respondents have no other property and that the respondent Abdul Hafeez is working in motor workshop since about ten years.
8. The petitioner on the other hand has not denied that the applicant Abdul Hafeez does not want to start the business of motor workshop in the disputed (sic) vacated from the opponent". He has also admitted that "it is a fact that I have remitted the money order after filing of this case".
9. The above statement of the petitioner has in actual fact supported the case of the respondents.
10. The concurrent findings recorded by the competent forums below, on both the issues, which are evidently issues of fact do not suffer from any legal infirmity, nor give rise to any question of law.
11. Such finding on the above issues does not call for any interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The bona fide personal requirement of the respondents in respect of the shop in question has been adjudicated as proved as aforesaid. Resultantly the petition being without merit is dismissed alongwith listed applications with no order as to costs. The above petition was disposed of by a short order, dated 20-9-2002 and these are the reasons for the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.