1. The appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the order of the Third Additional District Judge, Karachi dated 20th January, 1981 in Rent Appeal No. 572/79 reversing the order of the Second Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No. 1635/77, dated 9th August, 1979.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under :- The respondent who is the owner and landlord of Shop No. 78-A situated in the Commercial Area, Qasimabad, Liaquatabad; Karachi had rented it out to the appellant on a monthly rental of Rs. 125, initially for a period of 11 months by agreement of lease, dated 28th January, .1977. After the expiry of the period of tenancy he informed the appellant through a letter of his Advocate dated 28-1-1977 that he required the shop for his bona fide personal need and requested the appellant to hand over vacant possession thereof. The appellant refused to comply and therefore the respondent filed application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in the Court of the Controller No. 2 at Karachi on 27-5-1977.
3. Respondent Muhammad Saeed Chandna was examined in support of the application and he stated on oath that he required the shop for his own use as he wanted to start his own business of zarf gota in the premises which were in the commercial area. He asserted that he was qualified to start the aforesaid business having experience of more than 10 years in .It and he inter alia produced certificate from partner of "Zeenat Zari House". The certificate was to the effect that the respondent had been working for the last over 10 years in the capacity of Factory Manager and was fully aware of the procedure, formalities involved in manufacturing/ processing of zari, lace, etc. In his cross-examination it was sought to establish that for starting the aforesaid business, lot of capital was required. For instance, it was brought out through the cross-examination that the value of the machinery installed in Zeenat Zari House was of the value of Rs: 1,00,000. In reply to another question respondent stated that he wanted to start the business at a lower standard and he expected to invest about Rs. 30,000 in it. Incidentally, he further stated that he could produce proof to show that he could invest Rs. 30,000.
4. The learned Rent Controller No. 11, Karachi, decided the issue with regard to requirement of the shop premises in good faith for his own use by the respondent in the negative and disallowed the application.
5. As against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the respondent filed the First Appeal which was decided in his favour and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent within two months of the order, which was announced on 20-1-1981.
6. The only question involved in this case is whether the respondent required the shop, that is, a non- residential premises in good faith for his own use as envisaged under section 13(3) (ii) (a) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
7. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case ; wherein the learned Rent Controller No. 11, Karachi gave the finding against the respondent.
8. As already stated, the learned Third Additional District Judge, Karachi was of different view and came to the conclusion that the respondent required the premises for his bona fide personal use.
9. As already stated, there was evidence on oath by the landlord stating that he wanted to start his own business in the show premises which is situated in a commercial area, and he supported his plea that he wanted to start the business by producing a certificate with regarded to his ability to do so. This essential assertion about his requirement good faith for his own use could not be shaken in the cross-examination. It may at the very outset be stated that it was never the case of the appellant that the respondent demanded enhanced rent and except that in his written statement before the Rent Controller he had alleged that the ejectment was for "ulterior motive", there is nothing brought out from the cross-examination of the respondent even to suggest any such ulterior motive.
10. The only expressed reason for the decision of the learned Rent Controller No. II is that it had been admitted by the respondent that be had been getting Rs. 1,000 per month as pay from the Zeenat Zari House and therefore it was a conjecture that he could not have saved Rs. 30,000 from such a meager pay. The conjecture to say the least was not at all justified in that no question had been put in the cross-examination to the respondent as to how he had saved the amount he wanted to invest in the new business. The only other fact which weighed with the learned Rent Controller was that the machinery worth Rs. 1,00,000 was required for opening the business. Again the conjecture is not justified at all because the respondent had definitely stated in his cross-examination that he wanted to open the business at a lower standard and he had merely stated the fact that the machinery with the Zeenat Zari House was worth about Rs. 1,00,000. The learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi rightly observed that the stress by the learned Rent Controller on non- production of any document by the respondent to prove that he could invest Rs. 30,000 was totally misconceived as the respondent had deposed that he could produce documents but neither the Rent Controller nor the appellant put him to the test. It was further remarked by the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent had not stated that he had saved the amount of Rs.
11. 30,000 only from his salary as no question was put to him about the source of his saving.
12. A reference to section 13(3) (ii) would show that in the case of a non-credential building the landlord under clause (a) bad merely to satisfy the Controller that he required it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his male children, and further, he had to show under clause (b) that he or his said child was not occupying in the same urban area in which the premises is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or premises suitable for his needs ; and under clause (c) he had also to show that he had not vacated such building etc. Without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Ordinance in the said urban area. All the aforesaid requirements were fully satisfied in the instant case, and the Controller had reason to be satisfied that the claim of the landlord was bona fide. It was not a pre-condition under the law for the landlord to show that he had made all requisite preparations for running the intended business before filing application for ejectment. It was so held H in the decision of the Lahore High Court in Haji Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Qadir (PLD 1975 Lah. 200). The respondent had made a statement on oath asserting his requirement for personal bona fide use which stood the test of cross-examination. In the decision of this Court in Hassan Khan v. Mrs. Munawar Begum (PLD 1976 Kar. 832) the safeguard provided in subsection (4) of section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was considered as sufficient for the tenant against being ejected on false plea of bona fide requirement by the landlord, and it was observed as under '.- "The effect is that the assertion or claim on oath by the landlord that he requires the premises for his personal use should be accepted by the Rent Controller as bona fide, if such claim or assertion, although by itself may be insufficient, yet is consistent with his averments in the application and is not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal."
13. "The evidence in this case fully justified the claim by the landlord that he required the premises bona fide. For his own use as he had no other accommodation of his own. To have dismissed this plea as not proved merely because he had failed to prove his illness as a heart patient by medical evidence was arbitrary and contrary to law."
14. PLD 1978 Kar. 188) the expressions "bona fide" and "good faith" were examined and it was observed that the jurisdiction of the Controller to order eviction on the ground depended on his satisfaction that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and his requirement is in good faith. It was further observed as under "In actual practice a landlord would be deemed to have satisfied the aforesaid conditions by leading evidence of the reasonableness of his needs and if he succeeds in doing so, the onus would shift to the tenant to prove facts which militate against the existence of good faith for which it positively establishes dishonesty of purpose on the part of the landlord to claim possession of the premises on the ground of personal need."
15. For the reasons stated above, I consider that the impugned judgment of the learned 11Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi was on the facts and the law very proper, and there is nothing made out in the appeal which could justify interference with it. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.