1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO C.J.---This petition is directed against concurrent findings of the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in R.C. No,497 of 1998 and F.R.A. No,229 of 2004 respectively.
2. ' The facts giving rise to this petition are that the Respondent No,1 had purchased property i.e, Bungalow No,E-14, Block-10, KDA Scheme-24, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi in which the petitioner is running a School through a society established for the purpose being petitioner No,2 respondent after purchasing the said property served with a notice under section 18 of the SRPO 1979 and informed change of the ownership and demanded payment of rent and also vacant possession as he required the same for his personal use. Upon failure to pay the rent he filed ejectment application on the ground of damage to the property by making alteration/addition without the consent of the landlord and for personal use.
3. ' The petitioner in his written statement denied the allegations levelled by the respondent No,1 .
4. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the opponent has committed wilful default in payment of rent to the applicant.
(2) Whether the applicant has damaged the case property by making addition and alteration therein unauthorlisedly.
(3) Whether the Opponent has sublet the case property.
(4) Whether the applicant required case property due to personal bona fide need.
(5) What should the order be.
5. ' There is no contradiction in respect of issue No, 1 . The respondent No,1 before 13 the Rent Controller proved that the petitioner has not paid bills of certain amenities. The learned Rent Controller has discussed this point in detail and he has done so rightly.
6. ' In the case reported in 2003 SCJ 877 it has been held that "assertion on the part of tenant that he had paid advanced rent to previous landlord would not relieve him from his liability to pay rent to new landlord after receipt of notice under section 18. Non-payment of rent to new landlord after receipt of notice under section 18 would constitute default and ejectment of tenant ordered for such default would not be open to interference by Supreme Court." In the present case the petitioner was duly intimated about the c change of ownership but he failed to pay the rent.
7. ' In the case of Feroz Ahmed v. Zehra Khatoon (1992 CLC 735 Karachi) it has been held that "the opponent has been duly intimated about change of ownership by the previous owner as well as the new owner but the opponent failed to pay the rent to the new owner. This act of opponent has made him defaulter in respect of the payment of rent. So also the opponent failed to make payment of charges of amenities in disregard of rent agreement rendered t he opponent as defaulter.
8. ' In the case reported as PLD 2003 SC 277, it has been held that landlady could not be non-suited only on the ground of non-examination herself in support of her personal bona fide need and her representation through attorney was not fatal to her case. Witness has categorically stated in their evidence that the landlady needed the premises for her personal bona fide need and she had demanded the premises many a time to be vacated but tenant refused to do the same which version was never controverted by the tenant in his evidence. The Honourable Supreme Court while accepting the appeal of the landlady allowed 30 days time to the tenant to vacate the demised premises in the circumstances.
9. ' In the case reported in 2004 SCM R 115, it has been held that contention of the tenant was that the statement of landlord recorded on oath did not command respect and the plea of the personal need set up by him was not bona fide as he had singularly failed to prove the remaining two grounds, namely default in payment of rent and subletting urged by him on oath. Failure of landlord to establish ground of default and subletting could have no bearing on the established ground of personal need which by itself was sufficient to sustain. The Honourable Supreme Court declined to interfere with the eviction order passed by High Court against the tenant.
10. ' In the case reported in 2001 SCM R 1197, it has been held that where the statement on oath was quite consistent with his averment made in the ejectment application and the same had neither been shaken nor anything had been brought in evidence to contradict the statement, such statement on oath would be considered sufficient for acceptance of the ejectment application.
11. Conclusion drawn by High Court being unexceptional did not call for interference.
12. ' In the case reported in 2008 SCM R 28, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that normally landlord must be allowed benefit of use of his premises, unless any circumstances was brought on record indicating his requirement to be mala fide. Landlord has to prove his need to be genuine at the time of filing eviction proceedings and that he had not got other property vacated, which was suitable for his need asked for default and subletting could have not bearing.
13. ' So far as structural changes are concerned, it is admitted that no permission was obtained by the appellant from KBCA nor such permission was obtained from the present owner or from the previous owner. Be that as it way, the learned Rent Controller has discussed this point in detail which cannot be interfered.
14. ' As far as personal requirement is concerned, the learned Rent Controller after examining evidence of the parties has rightly held that the case property is required by the respondent/owner personally. It is also rightly observed that in case the property in question is not used for personal then punishment and penalties in the rent Laws together with revival of possession to the tenant is provided.
15. ' I have examined both judgments of the lower Courts which do not suffer any infirmity or illegality. I have also considered the case laws cited above which find support to the case of the respondent. I, therefore, dismiss this petition along with the listed applications. However, the petitioner is given six months time to vacate the premises. In case of default, writ of ejectment be issued directly without notice.