' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Through the present petition, Rehan Ahmed (the Petitioner) has questioned the two decisions made by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, Central (Rent Controller) and by the IV-Additional District Judge, Karachi Central (IV ADJ), passed in Rent Case No,618 of 2007, (Rent Case) and First Rent Appeal No,178 of 2009 (FRA) respectively.
2. Encapsulating the background of the case, precisely, is that Mrs.Nadra Israr, then wife of Israr Ali, now his widow (Respondent No,1) filed the Rent Case against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need inasmuch as it was stipulated that her deceased husband after retirement on 27-2-2007 from City District Government Karachi (Revenue Group) upon attaining age of superannuation was to commence business in the Shop No,2 of plot/property No,2/133, Commercial Area Liaquatabad, Karachi, Rauf Market (Shop) which was/is under tenancy of the petitioner. It was also mentioned in the Rent Case that before filing it, Notice dated 18-6-2007 for eviction on the ground aforementioned was also sent and he (Petitioner) was also approached through other persons of the vicinity for the needful but in vain. Rent Case also narrated that son of the respondent No,1, Rehan Ahmed earning his livelihood in Dubai, UAE and because of government policy of UAE most of the Pakistanis are returning back to Pakistan permanently and that Rehan after return would join his father (now deceased) in earning livelihood for which purpose as well the Shop was required.
3. The petitioner contested the Rent Case by raising that it (Rent Case) was not maintainable inasmuch as that the Shop was bartered in lieu of pugree amount of Rs,575,000 in terms of agreement dated 4-9-1986. It was also denied that Rehan Ahmed because of UAE government policy had to return back to Pakistan and to commence business in the Shop with his father (now deceased). It was urged that now deceased husband of the respondent No,1 was already engaged in real estate business with his other son namely M. Kashan Ahmed who has two real estate businesses at two different places. Therefore personal need was declared as sham and not even remote. Next it was implored that in Rauf Market where the Shop is located and owned by respondent No,1 one Shop No,4 earlier in time got vacated from one Mr. Salahuddin but no business was commenced therein. Receipt of Notice and urging to vacate the Shop through other people was disputed and denied. Having asserted as much, the Rent Case was urged to be dismissed.
4. ' Rent Case proceeded and in terms of Order dated 7-10-2009 Rent Controller ordered eviction of petitioner from the Shop.. FRA was filed which remained fruitless when Judgment dated 31-7-2010 was delivered upholding eviction. Present petition followed thereafter.
5. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above stated affairs, and the evidence that was brought before the Rent Controller, the Rent Case ought to have been dismissed and/or FRA ought to have been allowed inasmuch as in evidence it clearly came on record and/or the evidence that was led gone un rebutted as it was established to the hilt that the requirement of respondent No,1 of the Shop was not bona fide and patently mala fide. It was also mentioned that in the Rent Case so also in reply to the FRA it was asserted by the respondent No,1 that the personal need of the Shop was that of deceased husband who was to commence business therein. It was pointed out that while the proceedings for eviction on the ground of personal need were still pending before the Rent Controller, Rehan who is pursing his living in Dubai came to Pakistan, got married and went back to Dubai along with his wife and still carrying on his abode and earnings there and that Kashan is also well established in his real estate businesses. It was argued that this position is clearly established- from the evidence/cross examination available on record. It was then argued that Israr Ali, the husband of respondent No,1, for whose personal need the Shop was required and Rent Case was filed, has died now and therefore the cause of action/personal need extinguished and is no more alive. Circumstances, being such, it was asserted that the decisions of two courts below set aside.
6. The respondent No,1 contested the petition vigorously. It was asserted that though respondent No,1's husband's demise is not disputed personal need still subsists inasmuch as that Rehan still wants to commence his business in the Shop upon return from Dubai, alternatively Kashan can also start his own business therein (Shop). It was also urged that the cause of action is subsisting and unless the Shop is handed over, the same would continue. Nothing else was asserted,
7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and have gone through the record. It is an admitted position that respondent No, 1 's husband for whose personal bona fide need the Shop was required is not alive. It is also evident from the evidence/cross-examination of deceased Israr Ahmed, husband of respondent No,1 who was the only witness put forward to prove the Rent Case admitted that he was not authorized to give evidence on behalf of respondent No,1 by admitting that, "It is correct that my son went to Dubai in July 2005" "It is correct that in Exh.A/2 I was not authorized to give evidence before the rent Controller." "It is incorrect that no power of attorney had been given to me and although [that] I am not authorize to give evidence in the instant Pent Cases (as) a witness." In .Addition to this precarious legal position against the respondent No,l, it was further evident from the cross examination of Israr that he admitted that "Vol: says that my son went to Dubai in July.
2005. It is correct that I did not file any docuementry proof regarding policy of Dubai Govt., related to personal working there. It is correct that I did not file any documentary proof regarding the miseries of working person at Dubai. My son is Computer Operator in Dubai. His wife is also residing with him at Dubai. My son had married on 25-12-2007 after the institution of ejectment application. It is correct that I did not file any proof regarding his intention to return to Pakistan permanently." "It is correct that I did not mention in main ejectment application in para 7 regarding personal need of my son." It is also a matter of record that despite petitioners allegation in his evidence that Kashan, the other son of respondent No,1 is engaged in real estate business (for whose need the Shop was not required) nothing in cross-examination was suggested that such is not the case or that the suggestion of the petitioner was untrue. There are documents/exhibits (Annexure D/1 to D/6) on record to substantiate the fact that Kashan Ahmed is doing real estate business and that therefore it is also established that the requirement of the Shop was not his. Since the two sons of the respondent No,1 are well established in their own business/works and also the fact that in the Rent Case as well only. The personal need was stated to be of deceased husband of respondent No,1 and that he is no more alive, the reason for which the Rent Case was filed, elapsed and/or the personal need of deceased husband is no more subsisting. All that came in rebuttal was that son of respondent No,1 would come back from Dubai to Pakistan and would commence his business without any substantiation. Nothing else was agitated by respondent No, 1 .
8. Looking at the above situation i,e, that Kashan is already established in his real estate business elsewhere and for his personal need Rent Case was not filed and that Rehan is also earning his livelihood in Dubai and that he came to Pakistan during Rent Case, got married and went back to Dubai shows that he has no intentions to come back to Pakistan, (may be because of unstable economic and political condition of the country) and that it was never a case of respondent No,1 that she would do the business in the Shop herself and also the fact that Israr Ahmed, the husband of respondent No,1 is no more alive, for whose personal need Rent Case was filed is no more subsisting, the case needs to be looked dynamically. The scheme of section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by way of Sub-Clause VII of subsection (2) would show and stipulate that if the landlord requires the premises (in the present case Shop) in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children, and such having been established, the Rent Controller shall make an order, directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within such period as may be specified in the order. It has amply come on record that the rent case only stipulated the requirement of Shop for the use of respondent No,l's deceased husband and that it has also come on record, through evidence that the need of the Shop was not that of the sons of the respondent No,1 who are earning their livelihood in Dubai and in Karachi respectively. The personal bona fide need of the Shop that was existing remained as such till the death of respondent No,. l's husband. Now that it has extinguished because of sad demise of respondent No, l's husband, the circumstances have changed and/or altered altogether. Under these altered and changed circumstances where the bona fide personal need of respondent No,1 's husband is no more subsisting because of his demise, this petition is allowed and because of such altered and changed circumstances, the decisions handed down by the Rent Controller and by the IVth ADJ are set aside
9. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.