1. MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J. --- The petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.8.2008 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi Central; in First Rent Appeal No. 184/2007 which was dismissed whereby finding of Rent Controller in Rent. Case No. 390/2006 was maintained.
2. Succinctly the facts leading to the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed Rent Case stating therein that the petitioner is tenant in respect of shop No. 6 situated on plot No. 1/19, 'C' Area, Liaquatabad Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- used for running KAKA HOTEL, presently it is in extreme bad condition. The respondent No. 1 is residing on the first floor and her husband is a patient of Myopathy who cannot suffer the heat of the hotel emerges from the shop broken the floor of the respondent's house. The petitioner has defaulted in payment of electricity charges. The premises is required by respondent No. 1 in good faith for the use of her children his son Hafiz Muhammad Mubashir wants to run Madarsah in the demise premises with the help of his brother namely Hafiz Muhammad Ahsan.
3. The petitioner has filed the written statement and denied the averments of the ejectment application stated that previous tenant Muhammad Ibrahim was running KAKA HOTEL and after his death the petitioner remained in possession. The respondent No. 1 after purchase of the property forced the petitioner to increase the rent from Rs. 1700/- to Rs. 2500/-, the petitioner paid the rent regularly. The petitioner is maintaining the premises at his own cost. The petitioner has contended that he is paying electricity. Bills. The personal bona fide need of the respondent No. 1 is denied being based on mala fides.
4. On the basis of evidence by the parties learned Rent Controller has allowed the ejectment application, being aggrieved respondent No. 1 filed First Rent Appeal which was also dismissed, hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has emphatically contended that the demand of higher rent by itself connotes that the personal bona fide' requirement has been set up to oust tenant from demise premises. It is next urged that the question whether landlord did not require the premises in good faith could be determined in his cross-examination the question of disclosure of nature of was relevant. It is further stated that the respondent No. 1 is residing on first flobr her husband is suffering from heart disease and requires premises for the use of the children, his minor son Hafiz Muhammad Mubashir wants to run a Madarsa with the help of his brother Hafiz Muhammad Ahsan.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent inter alia, contended that Rent Controller as well as the first Appellate Court has considered the entire evidence in its proper perspective, the respondent through reliable evidence had proved the case that she requires the premises for her bona fide personal use as well as for the use of her children.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties examined the evidence on record. In my view, learned Rent Controller after appraisal of the entire evidence allowed the rent application of the respondent No. 1 holding that the disputed premises is required bona fidely and in good faith for her children. Question whether landlord had disclosed nature of business in the ejectment application though irrelevant in absence of any provision of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in restriction even if provided by the law would be hit by Article 18 of the Constitution, provides for freedom of trade and business as held in case of Khawaja lmran Ahmed v. Noor Ahmed and another (1982 SCM R 1152). The statement of the landlord on oath is consistent and was not disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove requirement of the landlord. In support of the above contention reliance is placed in case of MIs. F.K. Irani and Company v. Begum Feroze (1996 SCM R 1178). It is well-settled law that for determination of bona fide personal need of landlord satisfaction of the Rent Controller is sufficient. The plea of the .Tenant that the landlord had intended to increase the rent and the ejectment application was filed on the basis of bona fide requirement, as a matter of fact a demand of higher rent by itself does not cause any doubt about the personal bona fide personal requirement if the victim of bona fide requitement is independently proved. This view finds support from the dictum laid down in case of Nisar Ahmed v.
8. Noor Muhammad Khan and 6 others (1990 SCM R 544), Pirzada Rafiq Ahmed v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman (1980 SCM R 772).
9. No other point was urged in support of the petition which is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed alongwith listed application. The petitioner is allowed to vacate the demised premises within three months and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent subject to payment of usual rent failing which writ of ejectment shall be issued without any prior notice with police aid if necessitated in given circumstances. Parties are left to bear its costs. .