' This Second Appeal under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, by the tenant is directed against an order passed in rent appeal for the tenants eviction on the ground of personal bona fide use.
2. On 15-12-1970, the respondents-landlord filed an application for tenant's eviction. In the application it was alleged that four of the applicants were unemployed and they wanted to start their own business in the premises in occupation of the appellant "as they were now able to do so".
The appellant-tenant denied this allegation and further contended that the landlords had another business premises which they were using as such and further that the application was motivated with intent to secure enhancement of rent which was not acceptable to the tenant. On behalf of the landlords, one of them, namely, Noor Hussain, entered the witness-box in support of their case.
This witness deposed that they were in all six brothers out of whom two of them were serving and the rest were unemployed. He further deposed that in the premises in occupation of the respondent, the landlords used to run the business of `chana phali' before its construction, but after 1965 War, their monetary condition was such that they were not able to sustain losses and accordingly rented it out to the appellant, for a period of one year and the four unemployed applicants' now wanted to run their own business in this shop. In cross-examination he admitted that the building had been reconstructed by him in the year 1966, and thereafter let out to the appellant and the landlords were not working during the construction after its completion. The witness also admitted that in 1967, he started doing import/export business, the office of which was situate in his residence and that his brothers did join him in doing this business but the business did not fetch much income. The allegation that the landlords had demanded enhancement of rent was squarely denied. No other evidence was led on behalf of the landlords. The tenant in his evidence denied that the landlords required the shop premises for their own use. He admitted that he did not know the address in Kharadhar where the import/export business was being carried on by the landlords. He produced the written tenancy agreement dated 22nd April, 1966, between the parties which agreement provided that the landlords or any body else on their behalf shall not eject the tenant if the rent is paid regularly and the tenant abides by its terms and conditions. The Rent Controller while holding against the tenant that the application was not motivated with a view to obtain enhancement of rent proceeded to dismiss the application for in his view the landlords had failed to prove their case, more particularly as none of the four unemployed landlords had been examined or had stepped into the box to depose that the shop premises was required for their 'benefit and that Noor Hassan had admitted that he and his brothers were jointly doing the work of import and export. The Rent Controller further held that the premises had been let out to the tenant for an indefinite period so long he continued to pay the rent regularly. Accordingly, he dismissed the application.
2. This order was reversed in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court was of the view that any person who owns a property is entitled to use his property for his bona fide requirement. He further held that- "If the landlord makes a statement on oath that he requires the premises for the use to start import export business, as in the present case, then the heavy burden is shifted on the tenant that it is he who wants to deprive the landlord of the premises which otherwise he as the owner taking the protection of the obligations of the Ordinance."
' The First Appellate Court was impressed by the evidence of witness Noor Hassan that previously the four unemployed brothers were carrying on the business in the same premises but after 1965, their monetary condition became such that they had to let out the premises and now they wanted to start their own business. The lower Appellate Court was also impressed by the fact that the tenant had failed to prove that the existing premises from where the landlords were doing export and import work was insufficient and that the good faith of the landlords stood proved by reason of the failure of the tenant to prove his contention that any demand for enhanced rent was made, by the landlords and refusal to accede to the same resulted in the eviction proceedings.
3, Mr. Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, the learned -counselfor the appellant contended that the lower Appellate Court had failed to examine the case in its proper perspective inasmuch as the burden was on the landlords to prove affirmatively that they bona fide required the premises for their personal use and this heavy burden is not discharged by mere appearance of the landlord in the box and stating that he requires the premises and that if the tenant fails to prove that the demand was ulteriorly motivated, the eviction order must automatically follow. I had in a recent case (Second Appeal No, 478 of 1970), which was argued at length by counsel of eminence occasion to hold that the Rent Ordinance was eclectic in nature and ameliorative in purpose. The intention of the Rent Ordinance is, according to its preamble, to restrict in public interest eviction of tenants and under subsection (1) of section 13, a tenant could be evicted only in accordance with the provisions of that section and not otherwise. And that the onus was on the landlord to establish that he was entitled to the possession of the remises in occupation of the tenant by bringing himself within the exceptions to subsection (1) of section 13 of the Rent Ordinance.
4. Mr. Saeeduzzaman, the learned counsel invited my attention to the and lords' application in which all that was stated was that four of the applicants were unemployed and they wanted "now" to start their own business. He also referred to the deposition of witness Noor Hassan on behalf of the landlords and made a justifiable grievance that this evident id not as much as state as to what was the business which the applicants/ and lords wanted to start, whether they had the means to start it or that the existing accommodation where export import business was being carried n was insufficient. The learned counsel complained that the finding Even by the First Appellate Court that the applicants wanted to carry on import export business from the shop premises is devoid of evidence for the witness Noor Hassan has not so stated. His statement merely is that he arries on import export work, the Office of which is situate in his resident and that this business did not fetch much. Income. He further complained t the onus was all the more on the applicants/landlords to prove that they had intended to start a particular business and had the financial capacity to do so, for as late as 1966, they had reconstructed the building and let out the shop to the appellant on condition that the tenant will not be evicted so long he continues to pay rent and abide by the terms and conditions of the tenancy. In this state of the evidence I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the landlords had failed to prove that they required the premises for their personal vise for that burden cannot be said to be discharged by bare and bald statement in the evidence that some of the landlords ere unemployed and they wanted to start some unspecified business.
5. The result is that this appeal is allowed and the order of the first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Rent Controller maintained with no order as to cost.