' The respondents brought an ejectment application against the appellant on the ground of default in the payment of rent and personal need, with respect to the demised premises i,e, Hall measuring 45 x 25 feet and a room attached thereto, described in the application, which according to the respondents, was rented out to the appellant vide rent deed, dated 14-7-1992. The ejectment application was pending, when another petition was filed for the appellant's eviction, now from the room measuring 10 x 10 feet and a bathroom. This according to the respondents, was rented out to the appellant through an oral tenancy between the parties; again the grounds of default and personal need were agitated for the eviction of the appellant in this case.
2. The petitions were resisted by the appellant. Perhaps both the matters were consolidated. Issues were framed, parties were put to trial and the learned Rent Controller by a single order, decided the issue of default in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Such finding has been maintained by the learned Court of appeal as well. Even today, the learned counsel for the respondents has not pressed this ground. Anyhow, on the personal need, the learned Rent Controller decided the issue in favour of the respondents and passed the ejectment order on 14-11- 2002. This order has been affirmed in appeal, when challenged by the appellant. Hence this second appeal.
3. Therefore, the only remaining issue in the field is about the personal bona fide requirement of the respondents. The respondents in their eviction applications have specifically, categorically and in unequivocal terms stated that they require the premises for their personal need. But in the examination-in-chief of A.W.1, it has been conceded that the respondents need the premises for "Chandni Shadi Hall", a private limited company, of which, the respondents may be the shareholders and also the Directors. Likewise, respondent No,1 Zahid Javed himself appeared as A.W.2 and stated in the examination-in-chief that at the place, he has a "Shadi Hall" but because of the paucity of area, he needs to extend the said Hall. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that Exh.R.1 and Exh.R.2 are the memorandum and articles of association of "Chandni Banquet Hall (Pvt.) Limited"; he also has conceded that the premises in questions are needed for the extension of the "Chandni Banquet Hall". On account of above, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that the respondents have failed to prove their own bona fide personal need, rather the need allegedly established is that of the private limited company, and as the company is not the landlord of the appellant and is a distinct legal person, therefore, the respondents (landlords) cannot get the premises vacated for the company, within the purview of section 13(2)(b) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In support of his argument, Mr. Muhammad Amin Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Messrs Franksons & Co. v. Mian Muhammad Hussain 1983 CLC 1042, Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Bashir Muhammad Nazir & Co. 1981 CLC 689 and Bashir Hussain and another v. Sh. Muhammad Saeed and 2 others. PLD 1976 Lah.
1095.
4. Mr. Javed Bashir, learned counsel for the respondents states, that the judgment reported as 1983 CLC 1042, on which, much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, is distinguishable and is not applicabk, to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is submitted, that in the aforesaid judgment, the landlord had filed the ejectment petition, in which, it was specifically claimed that the property is required for the personal need of a limited company and, therefore, the Court on the interpretation and analysis of the relevant law, came to the conclusion that a landlord (a natural person) cannot seek the eviction for a company (juristic person), even if he is the shareholder or the member of its Managing Committee; but in the instant case, from the contents of the petition, it is very clear that the respondents had sought the ejectment for their own use and bona fide requirement; if incidentally, the respondents are also conducting the business of "Chandni Banquet Hall" in a property, which is adjacent to the premises in question, and by virtue thereof, the business of the private limited company, shall stand extended, it would not mean that the premises are being asked for the company, rather than the respondent.
5. Heard. It is settled law that a company is a separate, independent juristic person and is a legal entity, capable of acquiring rights and discharging its obligation and has a character and status, distinct from its members/share-holders and the natural persons, who are managing the affairs of the company. It is an admitted position on the record that, "Messrs Chandni Banquet Hall", is a private limited company, and it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are only the share-holders or the Directors of the said company. It has been conceded that "Messrs "Chandni Banquet Hall" is not the landlord of the appellant. The appellant admittedly is the tenant under respondents, who are his landlords within the meaning of law, and have no concern with "Chandni Banquet Hall (Pvt.) Ltd.", and vice versa. In the eviction application, the respondents have claimed the ejectment on the ground of their personal requirement, thus, under the law, they were bound to prove that the premises are needed by them, where they would establish their own business. But though having set out a case of their own personal requirement in their petition, the respondents through their evidence have not been able to prove the said plea.
Rather contrary to this, as mentioned in the narration of facts, and is apparent from the statements of both the A.Ws., who have categorically stated, that the premises are needed for the extension of "Chandni Banquet Hall". This concern, as mentioned earlier, is not the landlord of the appellant, therefore, the respondents instead of their own, in fact, in the evidence have propounded a case for the requirement of altogether of different person i,e, company. The key question, therefore, would be, whether the landlord of the property though asserting in the eviction application his own need, can seek and succeed in getting the eviction of the tenant for the use of another person. The answer is in the negative, because according to the clear wording of the provisions of section 13, it is only for the personal need of the landlord that the property can be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement. The Courts below have totally ignored the provisions of this section and the judgment reported as 1983 CLC 1042, while passing the impugned orders.
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that they have mentioned in their application about their need, therefore, even if, in the evidence, the requirement relates to a private limited company, of which, they are the share-holders, it shall have no reflection upon their case; suffice it to say, that the pleadings are not the proof of a claim, rather it is the foundation, whereas the structure of the proof has to rest on such foundation. But when there is a clear departure or conflict in the pleadings and the evidence, the claim of the party to the lis has to failure on the rule, that no one can depart from his pleadings. And the evidence should be in consonance therewith, rather beyond its scope; which the Courts are supposed to ignore if is in conflict with the pleadings.
By applying this rule and ignoring the evidence of the respondents about the need of "Chandni Banquet Hall", there is nothing on the record to establish that the premises are needed by the respondents for their own use. The forums below have passed the impugned judgments by overlooking and ignoring the above mentioned legal position and therefore, the decisions rendered obviously are contrary to law, which cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside.
7. Before parting, while attending to an argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, that it is the choice of the landlord to seek the eviction of the tenant and reliance in this behalf placed upon Mehdi Nasit Rizvi v. Muhammad Usman Siddiqui 2000 SCM R 1613 and Haji Abdullah and 10 others v. Yahya Bakhtiar PLD 2001 SC 158, it is held, that the above rule has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The choice of the landlord become relevant, where the landlord has more than one properties occupied by different tenants, and he chooses to file the application seeking ejectment of one of the tenants from a particular property. The tenant, against whom the action is initiated, cannot assert that the landlord should ask for the eviction of some other property/tenant, because that would be more suitable to his need. It is in answer to this kind of plea, that the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the law, that it is the prerogative of the landlord to ask for a particular property as he is the best Judge of his need and the tenant cannot resist his eviction, on the ground that the' landlord should have chosen some other premises.
'In the light of above, this appeal is allowed; the impugned G orders of the Courts below are set aside, with the result that the ejectment application of the respondents stands dismissed.