' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through the captioned Constitution petition, petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and agitated the Judgment dated 29-1-2014, passed by the learned Vth-Additional District Judge, Karachi South, in first rent appeal No,95 of 2013, whereby the first rent appeal, preferred by the petitioner was declined. The petitioner has sought following relief:--- "To set aside the impugned order dated 23-2-2013, and subsequent judgment dated 29-1-2014, being ultra-virus and without jurisdiction and dismiss the R, C, No,506 of 2008, (Muhammad Firdous v, Abdullah Haroon) on appreciation of the grounds detailed above and after hearing the petitioner's counsel, with cost, in interest of justice,"
2. Relevant facts spelt out from the instant petition are that respondent No,3 is owner of building known as Firdous Mansion, constructed on plot No,O.T-4/23, situated at Tikam Lane, Mithadar, Karachi, (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises") while petitioner is a tenant in respect of shops bearing Nos.1 and 2 on ground floor of the said building. The demised premises is consisted of shops Nos.1 and 2, which is actually one unit shop and no partition wall is existing between them.
The respondent No,3 repeatedly requested the petitioner that the demised premises is required for personal bona fide use for his son namely Muhammad Faraz who is jobless and wants to start his own business of sale of Zari Gota but petitioner did not pay any heed and tendered the monthly rent through postal money order. On 26-3-2008, respondent No,3 sent a legal notice to the petitioner through his counsel to vacate the demised premises for the personal bona fide use of his son but petitioner did not reply the same. Ultimately, respondent No,3 filed Rent Case No,506 of 2008, against petitioner in the Court of VII-Rent Controller, South Karachi, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of his said son. In rebuttal, petitioner filed written statement and denied the averments of rent application and stated that Muhammad Faraz is running a shop of photocopy, stationeries and public call office, situated in the building known as Farukh Mansion, constructed on Plot No,NP-2/2, Nawab Mehabat Khan Road, Lea Market, adjacent to Kakri ground, Karachi. It was further averred that a huge capital is required for manufacturing of Zari Gota, whereas the son of, respondent No,3 has neither a huge capital nor import licence to establish such business.
3. During the pendency of rent case, respondent No,3 died and his legal heirs were joined as respondents Nos.3(i) to 3(x) respectively. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of respondents, Muhammad Faisal being one of the co-sharers and attorney of the other respondents, filed his affidavit in evidence and produced power of attorney at Exh.A/2 and TCS confirmation report at Exh.A/3. Respondent Muhammad Faraz also filed his affidavit in evidence at Exh.A/4. In rebuttal, the petitioner filed his affidavit in evidence at Exh-O/1 and produced PT-1 at Exh.O/2.
4. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, the learned Rent Controller had framed the following points for determination:--
(i) ?Whether the applicant requires the demised premises for bona fide personal use of his son?
(ii) What should the order be?
5. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, learned Rent Controller vide order dated 23-2- 2013, allowed the ejectment application on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The petitioner being aggrieved of the ejectment order, preferred first rent appeal No,95 of 2013, in the Court of District Judge, Karachi South, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned V-Additional District Judge, Karachi South. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned appellate Court dismissed the said first rent appeal. Hence instant Constitution petition.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the application for ejectment of two shops for personal need of one person is not maintainable, and the respondents have failed to disclose specifically that which one shop is suitable for the son of respondent No,3, therefore, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures, hence bad in law. He further emphasized that said shops are under the tenancy of the petitioner for last 35 years wherein the petitioner has been carrying on business of retail and wholesale of Zari Gota, but the respondents with mala fide intention want to get ejectment of both the rented shops through one rent case. He further contended that respondents also own another building consisted of shops, wherein they are also residing, but respondents only chose petitioner to displace him from his old prospering business by fraudulent means. He also submitted that respondent Muhammad Faisal has filed a general power of attorney of other respondents including Mst. Afshan who is permanent resident of USA by forging her signature in the joint special power of attorney executed at Karachi.
He submitted that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below being contrary to facts and circumstances are liable to be dismissed.
7. While controverting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondents vehemently contended that the demised premises consisted of two shops without any intervening wall in shape of one unit, which were let out to the petitioner and said fact was mentioned in rent application, therefore, petitioner has deliberately misguided this Court by taking plea of two shops. He also submitted that respondents Muhammad Faisal and Muhammad Faraz have stated on oath that the demised premises is required for personal bona fide need and they were cross-examined at length but the petitioner has failed to shatter their statements. He further contended that petitioner has failed to produce any proof that respondent Muhammad Faraz is running any shop independently. He further emphasized that it is choice of the landlord to file ejectment proceedings as per his convenience and tenant cannot force the landlord to establish his business as per his choice. He also contended 'that the tenant has no authority to resist the bona fide personal need of the landlord on the plea of finance and experience. He further urged that petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the concurrent findings; hence instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined thoroughly the material available on the record which has reflected that petitioner was let out shops Nos.1 and 2 in shape of one unit without any partition wall by the respondent No,3 and such details are mentioned in rent application and affidavits in evidence filed by respondents namely Muhammad Faisal and Muhammad Faraz.
9. Indeed the plea raised by the petitioner that Muhammad Faraz is running his own independent shop in another building but during the course of trial, he had failed to produce any documentary proof or other cogent evidence to establish such plea. Respondents have proved the factum of personal bona fide need of Muhammad Faraz to establish his independent business honestly, justly and fairly, as he passed his Intermediate examination in the year 2000 and since then he is jobless.
Moreover, Muhammad Faraz had also filed his affidavit in support of rent application and confirmed on oath that he wants to establish his own business of Zari Gota and during the cross- examination, his statement remain consistent with the averments of the rent application as such he has discharged such liability, therefore, the landlord of the demised premises cannot be deprived from his right and interest to use his property in the manner more suited to his needs.
10. So far the next plea agitated by the petitioner that respondents have other shops and Muhammad Faraz can conveniently start his business in any of those shops, has no legal substance as it is prerogative B of the landlord to establish his own independent business as per his convenience and choice and such need of the landlord could not be declined on the whim and wish of the tenant. In case of M/s F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroz 1996 SCM R 1178, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with the application for the ejectment and not shaken in cross-examination or disproved is sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord is bona It was further held that merely because the husband of landlady has 62 shops in one area and 21 shops in another, would not disentitle her to apply for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement of her son as it is for a landlord to select as to which of the building he wishes to use personally or to provide the same to his children.
11. The next plea asserted by the petitioner that Muhammad Faraz could not establish the business of Zari Gota as it requires huge investment and plenty of experience, has also no legal force to be considered. It is well settled that it is not mandatory for the landlord to disclose the nature of business which he wants to establish in the demised premises required for his personal bona fide need or to possess such experience of said business. In case of M/s F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroz 1996 SCM R 1178, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed that consideration like that the tenant being an old tenant from the year 1964 and had invested huge amounts for- establishment of business, which has earned goodwill as well, would be irrelevant. In case of Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCM R 1062, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that no legal requirement exists to the effect that landlord in seeking ejectment of tenant from a commercial premise on the ground of personal and bona fide need must disclose the nature of the business which he intends to start in the premises. It was further observed that it is also not necessary for landlord to prove his personal need of such premises that he must possess experience in the trade or business which he intends to set up in the premises after eviction of his tenant. In case of Mst. Sahira Bibi v. Syed Anees-ur- Rehman 1988 SCM R 71, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the applicant seeking ejectment of tenant was not required to show the nature of the intended business to be carried on in the required premises. In case of Mst. Tauheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad 1980 SCM R 593, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that lower Court erring in placing undue reliance on fact of nature of business being not stated in application for ejectment on ground of personal requirement.
12. The next plea raised by the petitioner that one co-sharer namely Mst. Afshan is residing in USA, had not signed the general power of attorney and her signatures appearing on said power of attorney, were forged, has also no legal base for consideration. It is also well settled that any of the co-sharer can file rent application against the tenant without impleading other co-sharers or obtaining their permission or filing their power of attorney duly executed in his favour, to approach the Rent Controller. In case of Muhammad Hamif and another v. Muhammad Jameel Turk and 5/ others 2002 SCM R 429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a co-sharer can file ejectment proceedings against a tenant without impleading other co-sharer. The wisdom behind such principle is that co-sharer acts on behalf of and F represents the interest of all the co- owners of the property.
13. The last plea agitated by the petitioner that he was inducted as tenant long ago and his business has been prospering and landlord with mala fide intention wants to oust him from the demised premises, is also devoid of any legal substance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its plethora of judgments has held that landlord has to establish his personal need for the requirement of demised premises bonafidely and long period of tenancy would not override such requirement on the ground that the business of the tenant has been flourishing. In case of Shereen Bai v. Famous Art Printers (Pvt) Ltd. And others 2006 SCM R 117, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is fundamental right of landlord to shift his business or to change its nature so long it remains lawful and not against the public interest. It was also observed that suitability of requirement of landlord to commence a lawful business in the premises in dispute can by no stretch of imagination be said to be mere desire rather than bona fide need. It was further observed that the tenants cannot be permitted to say that there long standing established business would be uprooted on account of their ejectment but the fact remains that for rehabilitating a landlord, the tenant must make a room for the owner and find out an alternate accommodation.
14. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that petitioner has failed to point out any material illegality and irregularity committed by the learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court while passing the concurrent findings, therefore, same do not deserve for any interference, hence maintained. Consequently, the instant Constitution petition being devoid of any legal substance stands dismissed.