1. ' Petition for leave to appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-8-2009 in C.P. No, S-238 of 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of High Court of Sindh at Karachi.
2. ' Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this petition are that the respondent No, 1 filed Rent Case No, 154 of 2003 in respect of Shop No, 3 on Ground Floor and Premises No, 1 on First Floor of Building No, 290-C, Central Commercial Area, R-1, Market, Tariq. Road, Karachi, (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises) on the ground that the demised premises are required by the respondent No,1 for his personal and bona fide use. After recording the evidence, the learned Rent Controller passed order of ejectment holding that the respondent No, 1 requires the demised premises for his personal bona fide use.
3. ' Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of ejectment, the petitioner filed Appeal No, 70 of 2007 which was dismissed, upholding the order of the Rent Controller dated 31-3-2009.
4. ' The petitioner impugned the orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Court by filing a Constitution Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, being C.P.
5. No, S-238 of 2009, in the High Court of Sindh Karachi. The learned Single Judge, in chambers, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties vide his order dated 11-8-2009 dismissed the petition directing the petitioner to vacate the premises by 10th November, 2009.
6. ' Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, argued that the demised premises was owned by the paternal grandfather of respondent No, 1 and there is no legal Gift of the property in favour of the respondent No, 1 as to transfer the title in the property by way of Gift.
7. He further contended that the respondent No, 1 has deliberately concealed the fact that he is the owner of other premises in his possession and concealment by the respondent of the premises in his possession would reflect adversely on the bona tide of his personal need and good faith. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Allied Books Corporation v. Sultan Ahmed (2006 SCM R 152) and Javeed Khaleeq v. Muhammad Irfan (2008 SCM R 28).
8. ' We have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that although the petitioner questioned the validity of the Gift in favour of the respondent No, 1 in his written statement filed by him before the Rent Controller but admitted that after receiving notice dated 19-7-2002 under section 18 A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance rent was tendered to the respondent No, 1 through money order and rent upto March, 2004 was paid to him. The respondent tiled his affidavit in evidence in which he made a categorical statement that he requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use, for setting up his own clothing business therein and the ground floor of the shop is required by him for Show Room for displaying his goods and sales outlet whereas first floor of the premises will be used by him for the purpose of stitching and as storage godown. He further stated that no other premises is available to him for the purpose of starting his business, whereas the demised premises are located in the heart of the Commercial Centre at Tariq Road and is mot valuable for his to start his clothing business. In the affidavit in evidence, he stated that the property in question was gifted to him by a registered Gift deed and notice of change of ownership was given on 19th July, 2002 in respect of Shop No, 3 and on 4th August, 2002 in respect of Premises No,
1. The respondent No, 1 denied in his affidavit in evidence that Shop No, 12 is owned by him. The respondent No 1 in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that he is running business at Shop No, 12, Block-9, Commercial Area, Bahadurabad as owner under the name "Mobile Telephone Connection" as authorized dealer, however, he admitted that one of his family members is owner of Shop No,
12. A suggestion was made during the cross-examination which was denied by the respondent that the demised premises was sold out by the maternal grandfather of the respondent No, 1 to the petitioner in consideration of Rs, 20 lac.
10. The petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that notice under section 18 of S.R.P.O. Were received by him and ' the respondent No, 1 in the said notice had mentioned that the demised premises have been gifted to him by previous owner. In the cross-examination he stated that he does not know that Shop No, 12 is run by Muhammad Ilyas, brother of the respondent and Income Tax has been paid by him. The petitioner admitted that after filing of the rent case he came to know that the respondent No, 1 is exclusive owner of the demised premises.
11. ' The Rent Controller as well as appellate Court and the High Court after taking into consideration all material on record came to the conclusion that the demised premises is required by the respondent No, 1 for his personal bona fide use.
12. ' The principle laid down in the case of Javed Khaleeq and Allied Books Corporation (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the instant case. The premises in which the respondent No, 1 is doing his business is neither owned by him nor any cogent evidence has been brought on record that the said shop is sufficient for establishing his business.
13. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, keeping in view the above discussed facts, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to interfere in the impugned judgment, being. Based on proper appreciation of facts and law.
14. This being the position, the petition is dismissed and . However, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner four months' time is granted, for vacating the premises; failing which a writ of possession be issued with police aid without any notice.