1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---This appeal is pending since 25-4-1992 against the order of Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi who had rejected the application of the landlord by order dated 7-3-1992. Being aggrieved from the order the landlord had filed appeal in this Court on 25-4-1992.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased property i.e, Shop Premises No,1 situated at Plot No,A-11/11, Delhi Colony, Karachi along with the tenant from its previous owner, who had given the Shop No,1 situated at Plot No,A-11/11, Delhi Colony, Karachi to deceased respondent Jalaluddin at the monthly rent of Rs,302. The present appellant had purchased the said property on 28-10-1989 along with the tenant. The case of the appellant is that after purchase of the property he had given notice to the respondent calling upon him to vacate the premises, which is a residential building. The appellant submitted that he required the said premises is good faith for his own personal use as well as for the use of his family members. The appellant had further stated that the appellant had no other premises except the one he had purchased. The respondent instead of vacating the premises had filed a declaratory Suit being No,159 of 1990 before the II Civil Judge, Karachi against the appellant alleging therein that the appellant wants to throw him out from the rented premises by force. The said suit had become infructuous on 5-1-1991 on the ground that the appellant had already filed the case for ejectment of the respondent from the said shop.
3. ' The learned Rent Controller upon perusal of the pleadings had framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the premises is required by the applicant in good faith for his personal bona fide use and for the use of his family member?
(2) What should the order be?
4. ' The appellant had filed the affidavit in evidence and was cross-examined by the counsel for the tenant. While the tenant/respondent had filed affidavit in evidence of his attorney and was cross- examined by the counsel for the appellant/ landlord. The learned Rent Controller had replied issue No,1 in negative on the ground that the landlord had failed to produce any evidence, which could substantiate his claim that he needs the premises for his personal bona fide use. Thereafter the landlord had filed appeal in this Court, which is pending since 25-4-1992.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who states that during the recent years the law on the personal bona fide requirement has almost changed and the superior Courts have left it open for the landlord to choose the premises he needs and to use the same as per his requirement.
6. ' None is present for the respondent/ tenant. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in the recent years the old concept that "once tenant is always a tenant" has almost vanished. Now the superior Courts are holding that the landlord also has a right to use his property during his lifetime. In the present case the tenant has already dies during pendency of the appeal. The landlord is also in his advance age. The litigation is pending since 1991. The personal bona fide requirement of the landlord is proved from the evidence.
7. ' In my opinion it will be proper and in the interest of justice if the requirement of personal bona fide need of the landlord should be accepted and appeal be allowed. Since the premises is in commercial use therefore, in the interest of justice while allowing this appeal I grant two years time to the respondent/tenant to vacate the rented premises and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the appellant/landlord. On expiry of two years period from today the learned Rent Controller will issue writ of possession without notice to the respondent, with police aid and with order of breaking open the lock.
8. ' This order is subject to payment of rent as well as utility bills. In case of default in payment of monthly rent and utility bills the order will become operational from the date of default. F.R.A.
9. No,239 of 1992 is allowed.