' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27-9-2012 passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi South, whereby he dismissed the F.R.A. No,99 of 2012 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25-2-2012, passed by the VIllth Rent Controller, Karachi South, allowing the ejectment application filed by the respondent No,1 and ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises,
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposing of this petition are that the petitioner is tenant of the respondent No,1 in respect of Flat No,2, First Floor, Nisar Manzil, situated at Ranchore Line, Karachi at the rate of Rs,400 per month. The respondent No,1 filed ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for ejectment of petitioner/tenant on three grounds viz: (i) default in payment of rent, (ii) petitioner has made addition and alteration in demised flat without permission and (iii) personal bona fide requirement of the son of the landlord.
3. The petitioner filed written statement denying the averments made in the ejectment application.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parities, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- -
(i) Whether the opponent has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rent?
(ii) Whether the opponent has made additions and alterations in the demised flat without written permission and consent of the applicant and impaired the material value and utility of the demised flat?
(iii) Whether the applicant requires the demised flat for his personal bona tide use as well as for the use as well as for the use of his son?
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned VIIIth Rent Controller, Karachi South allowed the ejectment application vide Order dated 25-2-2012 only on the ground of default in payment of rent and on the ground of the personal bona fide need of the premises by the landlord for- his son. Whereas, ground of making addition and alteration in the demised flat by petitioner without permission of landlord was not proved.
6. The petitioner challenged the ejectment order through F.R.A. No,99 of 2012 which was dismissed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi South vide impugned Judgment dated 27-9- 2012, hence this petition.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders of the two Courts below are against the facts and law and they have not appreciated the evidence on record.
He has further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any default in payment of rent as he has deposited the rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case with permission of the competent Court. He has further submitted that the present petitioner at the time of his induction in the demised premises had given Rs,1,52,000 as "Pugree" to the respondent No,1 through Bagh Ali Chohan in presence of the witnesses but this fact has also not been appreciated by the two Courts below. He has further submitted that the flat in possession of the petitioner is not required to the son of the respondents No,1 and according to him the requirement of personal need to the son of the respondent No,1 is based on mala fide intention only to get vacation of the flat in possession of the petitioner.
' It is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for the petitioner after concluding his arguments has filed statement to the effect that due to bona fide mistake in typing the word "Mrs" has been wrongly typed with respondent No,1 which is to be read as Muhammad Younus Bhoj an .
8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No,1 fully supported the impugned judgments/orders of two Courts below and stated that since there are concurrent findings of two courts below. It has not been shown that any findings is against the evidence on record. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have given cogent reasons in support of their findings and impugned judgments/orders do not call for any interference from this Court and prayed that petition may be dismissed. In support of her contention learned counsel has relied upon the case-law reported in 2001 SCM R 1197 (Iqbal Book Depot and others v. Khatib Ahmed and 6 others) and 2000 SCM R 1613 (Mehdi Nasir Rizvi v.
Muhammad Usman Siddiqui).
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record with their able assistance.
10. It is an admitted position that the present petitioner is the tenant of the respondent No,1 in respect of demised premises at the rate of Rs,400 per month and according to respondent No,1 the petitioner paid last rent for the month of March, 2010 and thereafter he failed and neglected to pay the monthly rent from Ist April, 2011 to the respondent No,1 despite repeated requests made by him from time to time and he is persistent defaulter in payment of rent. This fact has been denied by the petitioner by mentioning that he paid advance rent of the said flat for the month of April, 2011 and he made an attempt to pay the rent for a particular period but respondent No,1 refused to accept the same, hence he has deposited the rent in Court in MRC bearing No,584 of 2011 as such according to the petitioner he has not committed any default. On the point of default learned VIIIth Rent Controller has given detailed, cogent and convincing findings, which are reproduced as under:-- "Perusal of the evidence of the parties shows that the attorney of the applicant (respondent No,1) in his cross-examination has denied that opponent (petitioner) has sent money order and the applicant (respondent No, I) refused to receive the same but on the other hand the opponent (petitioner) has produced documentary evidence in shape of copy of money order form, sent by the opponent (petitioner) to the applicant (respondent No,1) and the report of refusal issued by the Assistant Superintendent, Admin, Saddar G. P.O on a form and further that this report, shows that rent of three months May, June, July was sent through that money order but it was refused and that after its refusal the opponent (petitioner) started to deposit the rent in M.R.C. In the Court.
Above from all another aspect of the case in hand is that according to the version of the applicant that the opponent (petitioner) has paid last rent to him for the month of March, 2010 and after that the opponent (petitioner) has not paid the rent for the month of April, 2011 and on the other side the version of the opponent (petitioner) is that he paid the rent for the month of April in advance to the applicant (respondent No,1) under receipt No,32 dated 2-4-2011. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant (respondent No,1) has produced the copy of receipt No,32 dated 2-4-2011 which shows that on that day the rent for the month of March is clearly mentioned on it and on the other hand the opponent (petitioner) has also produced receipt of same No,32 dated 2-4-2011 and in that receipt the month for which rent was paid is not mentioned and the signature is some how different from the signature on the receipt produced by the attorney of the applicant (respondent No,1). It is also pertinent to mention here that the receipt produced by the attorney of the applicant (respondent No,1) in his evidence has not been challenged by the opponent side in his cross- examination and no suggestion was put by the opponent side that the receipt produced by the attorney of the applicant (respondent No,1) is forged, it shows that the opponent side has admitted this receipt while on the other hand the receipt No,32 dated 2-4-2011, which was produced by the opponent side has been challenged by the applicant side in his cross-examination, though he has denied that it is not forged but the applicant side has challenged the same and not admitted.
Further that so far as the point of payment of pagri amount, as contended by the learned counsel for the opponent (petitioner), is concerned, from the perusal of the record it appears that opponent side not produced any oral documentary evidence to prove that any such amount was paid by him, even otherwise there is no concept of payment of Pagri amount under the provisions of the Sindh Rent Premises Ordinance, 1979."
' From the above findings it has been proved that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent for a particular period.
11. Now coming to the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the premises for the use of the son of the respondent No,
1. In the ejectment application it was stated that the premises in question is required in good faith for bona fide personal use of the son of the respondent No,1 namely Yasir Ali, who has attained the age of marriage and his marriage would take place in near future and the accommodation in possession of the respondent No,1 is not sufficient for him. Yasir Ali has filed his own affidavit-in-evidence mentioning therein that the premises in possession of the petitioner is required to him for his bona fide use as he was going to marriage in near future. This witness has been cross-examined by the petitioner at length but this witness has not shaken in cross- examination. No circumstance is available on record to show that desire of landlord to use his own property for his son was tainted with malice or any evil design. The statement of Yasir on oath has not been seriously challenged and same being consistent with the case pleaded by him must have been accepted on its face value and giving due weight. In this case conclusion drawn by Rent Controller to the effect that landlord's need was bona fide, could not be dislodged in the absence of any strong evidence to rebut the presumption of truth in the statement of landlord. In my view the landlord has the absolute right to acquire and deal with the property in the manner best suited to him and tenant has no right to disentitle the landlord of his valuable rights to acquire, deal and possess his property which right was guaranteed by Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court on the point of personal bona fide need of landlord's son Yasir Ali appears to be in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments/orders.
12. In view of the above, I find no merits in this petition, which is dismissed and maintain the orders/judgments passed by the two Courts below with no order as to costs. However, since petitioner is said to be old tenant, therefore, under the circumstances the petitioner is allowed six months time to vacate the premises in question and handover its peaceful vacant possession to the respondent No,1 subject to payment of rent regularly.