' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---This is Constitution Petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 filed against the order dated 22.4.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Larkana in F.R.A. No,03 of 2014 whereby appeal was dismissed and the order dated 13.08.2014 passed by the respondent No,4 (Rent Controller) allowing Rent Application No,11 of 2013 filed by respondents Nos,1 to 3 and directing the petitioner/tenant to handover the vacant possession of the shop Nos, 9, 10 and 11 in Noor Shopping Centre constructed on C.S. No,1519 Ward-B Resham Gali, Larkana (hereinafter to be called as demised premises), to respondents/ landlords within 60 days was maintained; hence this petition.
2. The material facts are that respondents Nos,1 to 3/landlord filed an application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as Rented Premises Ordinance) against the petitioner/tenant on 30.08.2013 pleading therein that respondent/ applicant No,1 purchased the premises in dispute which stands in the name of respondents/landlords Nos,2 and 3 in equal share (50 paisa share each) which was rented out to the petitioner/tenant on 01.02.2006 initially for 2-1/2 years vide rent agreement (Exh.14-B) executed by respondent/landlord No,l. It was also pleaded that the tenancy period was mutually extended under the terms and conditions agreed upon by the both parties with the enhancement in the monthly rent, which was being paid at Rs.18000/-. It was averred that respondent/landlord No,2 worked in rented premises in Haq-Maujood 'Shopping Centre, Resham Gali, Larkana and respondent/landlord No,3 having big family intended to work/do independent business from his father (respondent/landlord No,1), therefore, they required the premises in dispute for their personal bona fide use, which was refused to hand over by the petitioner/tenant in spite of service of notices; hence instant rent application was filed.
3. Petitioner/tenant filed written statement/objections and contested the matter on the grounds that the respondent/landlord No,1 being not the owner of demised premises, was not competent to execute the rent agreement and thus it was in violation of the provisions of section 5 of Rented Ordinance and the need of respondents/landlords was not bona fide one. The petitioner/tenant also raised a plea that original rent was Rs.14000/- and the respondent/landlord No,1 was pressing him for increase of rent by 40%and on his refusal, he filed this application.
4. Respondents/landlords Nos, 1 to 3 filed their affidavits in evidence is support of the application. In rebuttal, the petitioner/tenant filed his own affidavit in evidence so also of his witnesses, namely, Mumtaz and Kumar. They were cross-examined by the counsel for adverse parties.
5. Learned Rent Controller taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties and the arguments advanced by their counsel, settled two points on the factual controversy and one for deciding the fate of the application. Both the points relating to factual controversy whether respondents/landlords Nos, 2 and 3 intended to settle their business separately and did they require premises in dispute for personal bona fide need, were decided in favour of respondent/landlords Nos, 1 to 3 and consequently rent application was allowed as mentioned in parr (supra).
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that respondent/landlord No, 1 was/is not owner of the demised premises, as such, was not competent to execute the rent agreement and mere execution of tenancy agreement would not confer any title of ownership to seek eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need, therefore, the findings of Rent Controller as well as appellate court are erroneous, illegal and not based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents/ landlords contended that the petitioner was inducted as tenant by the respondent/landlord No,1 and the rent was also received by him and that no doubt the demised premises stands in the names of his sons, who are his joint family members, therefore, he was all along competent to executive tenancy agreement and file ejectment application.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case papers as well as relevant provisions of law.
10. The first question, which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the respondent/landlord No,1 was entitled by signing alone rent application to get the possession of demised premises under section 15 of Rented Premiles Ordinance. Before I proceed to dwell-up on the merits of the case, a reference to the relevant provision clause (f) of Section 2 of Rented Premises-Ordinance defining 'landlord' would be necessary to reproduce hereunder.
(f) "landlord' means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises."
11. In Paras Nos,2 and 3 of the rent application, it is stated that respondent/landlord No,1 executed the rent agreement with petitioner/ tenant being landlord of the demised premises and as per rent agreement, opponent was paying monthly rent. It is pertinent to note that petitioner/ tenant in his written statement/objections disputed the rent agreement on simple ground of being executed by incompetent person having not acquired ownership right and payment of rent under said agreement is not denied while in cross-examination he admitted the above fact and stated that:-- "It is correct that I executed rent agreement with Ahmed in Noor Shopping Centre for three shops.
It is correct that these shops after removing intervening walls made one shop. It is correct that the period of tenancy was extended with the mutual consent for 11 months. It is correct that I paid monthly rent to Noor Ahmed. It is correct that owners of Noor Shopping Centre are Jameel Ahmed and Munawar Ali. It is correct that Jameel Ahmed runs a shop in Haq Maujood Shopping Center and paying monthly rent of Rs.5000/- per month".
12. The above admissions of the petitioner/tenant clearly show that he entered into rent agreement with respondent/landlord No,1 and was paying rent to him. The above provisions of Rented Ordinance defining the 'landlord' goes upto the extent of including a person receiving rent on his own account or on behalf of any other person. If any law is needed on this point, reliance may be made on the case of Muhammad Ali v. Haji Abdul Rehman and others (1980 SCM R 29).
Furthermore, in the case of Saifuddin and another v. Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller-V111 Karachi (south) and 7 others (2007 SCM R 128) Honible Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "The petitioners having admitted their induction in the premises in their possession as tenant by the respondent, have accepted the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondents; therefore, notwithstanding any defect in the title of the respondents, they would be estopped to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant at a subsequent stage on the ground that a third person having set up his title in the property, has sent them a notice under section 18 of the Ordinance. The ownership of the property is not an essential condition to create relationship of landlord and tenant rather a person without being owner of the property may acquire the status of landlord of the property, therefore, the defect in the title of landlord may not be as such a valid ground to deny his status as landlord of the property and thus, non-payment of rent for such reason may constitute a willful default in terms of section 15 of the Ordinance which provides that if the tenancy between the parties is based on a written agreement, the tenant must pay rent of the premises in his possession within 15 days after expiry of period of payment of rent fixed in the agreement and in absence of any written agreement within 60 days after rent becomes due failing which tenant must face the consequence of ejectment".
13. In view of above legal position, respondent/landlord No,1 was entitled to file the rent application as he otherwise satisfies the requirement of law. Even respondents/landlords Nos,2 and 3, who are admittedly the owners of the demised premises, have fully supported the version of respondent/landlord No,l. Further, Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not permit to petitioner/tenant to deny the title of respondent/landlord No,1 as landlord of the demised premises during continuance of the tenancy and it is settled law one of the landlords can file ejectment application. In this regard, I am fortified by the case of Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani and another (PLD 1973 SC 214).
14. So far the ground of personal bona fide need of the demised premises, is concerned, as mentioned above the petitioner/tenant has admitted that the respondent/landlord No,2 runs his business in a rented shop and respondent/landlord No,3 has no separate business but work with his father. This admission further strengthen the claim of respondents/landlords requiring the demised premises for their personal bona fide need. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent/landlord No,1 having other properties is disentitled from claiming possession of the demised premises is untenable for the reasons that as per dictum laid down in the case of Shakeel Ahmed and another v. Muhammad Tariq Farogh and others (2010 SCM R 1925), it is a sole prerogative of the landlord to choice the rented shop if having more than one, therefore, no restriction can be enforced upon the landlord either by the tenant or by the Rent Controller.
15. Moreover in case of Haji Abdullah and others v. Yahya Bakhtiar (PLD 2001 SC 158), it was held that:-- "It can be inferred safely that question of bona fide personal requirement being a question of fact and if stands concluded by concurrent findings of the two Courts below it is not open to challenge in absence of any omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law".
16. Careful perusal of the impugned order would reveal that there is no mis-reading or non-reading of evidence and it does not suffer from violation of any principle of law applicable to the case, therefore, in view of above discussion, I do not see any reason to arrive at any different conclusion to that of the appellate Court. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
However, it has come on record that the petitioner is tenant for more than ten years, therefore, (90) days time is granted to him to vacate the demised premises from the date of this order.