This appeal under Section 24 of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is directed against the order & decree dated 28th February, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "the impugned Order & Decree") passed by learned Rent Controller Quetta Cant., (hereinafter referred, as "the Rent Controller), whereby the eviction application under Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 filed by the respondents was decreed and the appellant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents within three months.
2. Facts of the case are that initially on 30th April 2009 the respondents filed an eviction application against the appellants before the learned Rent Controller with the averments that the applicants are the owners/landlords of premises bearing Survey No, 540-A, measuring 2500.96 Sq. Meters situated at Quetta Cantt, over which a building is in existence (hereinafter referred as, "the premises in question"; that the said piece of land was previously owned by one R.U. Chong (Christian), who on 1st March 1987 rented out the premises in question to respondent at monthly rent of Rs, 4,500/-, but subsequently the premises in question was leased out to the respondents and the appellant being tenant has paid the rent till 2nd .June 2008, but thereafter the appellant has failed to pay the rent within time; that the premises in question is required to the respondents for their personal bonafide use and occupation for business purposes; that the appellant was approached to vacate the premises in question and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the respondents, but they delayed and thus are not inclined to vacate the same.
3. The appellant contested the eviction application by filing its rejoinder, whereby he has admitted the ownership of the respondents. Out of the pleadings of the parties, Rent Controller has framed the following issues: -- ( i ) Whether the application is maintainable in view of legal objection E of the rejoinder?
(ii) Whether the premises in question is required for personal bonafide use of the applicant?
(iii) Whether the respondent is a bad paymaster?
(iv) Relief?
4. The respondents produced three AWs and also recorded the statement of Respondent No, 1, whereas in rebuttal, the appellant produced two witnesses and also recorded statement of his attorney. On conclusion of trial and hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court decreed the eviction application, vide order and decree referred above. Whereafter, instant appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed by learned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt is suffering from misreading and none-reading of evidence; that the learned trial Court without appraising the evidence passed a none speaking order, which is highly uncalled for; that the learned trial Court ignored the version of appellant, which is not permissible under the law; that it was not proved through evidence that the appellant is bad pay master; that the inspection record submitted by the Commission was not discussed and taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller; that the respondents have been failed to prove their case of personal requirement; that the impugned order was passed in an arbitrary manner, which resulted miscarriage of justice.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the Respondent No, 1 and Respondent No, 2 vehemently opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the property in question is required for personal bonafide use of the respondents; that the respondents have proved their case through confidence inspiring evidence; that the appellants despite providing several opportunities in a long period have failed to vacate the possession; that the respondents are intended to establish their business in the property in question; that the learned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt. had passed the impugned order in favour of the respondents after proper appreciation of evidence, which is uncalled for interference by this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that initially the property in question was leased out by the Cantonment Board to one R.0 Chong (Christen) and thereafter the same was rented out to the appellants (Habib Bank Limited) on 1st March, 1987 on monthly rent of Rs, 4500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred), however, thereafter the said property bearing survey, 540-A 2500.96 square meters was devolved to the respondents, whereafter with mutual consent, the appellant continued to remain tenant of the respondents. It is further alleged by the respondents; that the appellants were failed to pay the rent after 2nd June, 2008 while on the other hand, the appellants in their rejoinder raised objections on maintainability of the application of the respondents in their preliminary legal objection (e). Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues as stated above and the main issues i,e, Issue No,
1. Whether the application is maintainable in view of the legal objection (e) of the rejoinder?; the Issue No, 1 was regarding maintainability of the suit, as the objection raised by the appellants that prior to the instant application, the respondents have already filed an application against the appellants, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt on 1st December, 2010 on none prosecution and the same was not challenged before the next higher forum as such the application of the respondent is hit by the principle of res-judicate. after hearing the parties, the learned Rent Controller has rightly decided the Issue No, 1 that the earlier application was not dismissed on merits rather, it was dismissed on none prosecution, since the earlier application was with regard to the none payment of monthly rent as such, the instant application is for personal bonafide requirements of respondents, and a fresh cause of action has accrued to the respondents and the respondents are at liberty to file application for ejectment at any stage for their personal bonafide requirement.
8. The next important issue was Issue No, 2 "whether the premises in question are required for personal bonafide use of applicants"? In this regard, the respondents/applicants produced three AWS and also recorded the statements of attorney Haji Karim Dad the Respondent No, 1.
Statements of all AWS supported the contention of respondents/applicants that the property in question is required for personal bonafide use of respondents/applicants as well as the averments of eviction application were supported by the statement on oath of the respondent/applicants, in this regard, reliance is placed on Iqbal Book Depot and others vs. Khatib Ahmed and others, 2001 SCM R 1197 wherein it was held that: It is well-settled by now that where the statement of landlord on oath was quite consistent with his averment made in the ejectment applications, neither his statement was shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict the statement that would be considered sufficient for acceptance of the ejectment application. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in case titled Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCM R 1062 wherein it was held as follows:-- "Sole testimony of the landlord is sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need of premises.
Where the statement of landlord on oath was quite consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application and neither his statement was shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict his statement and tenant had not even stepped in the witness-box to controvert the testimony of the landlord, Rent Controller was fully justified in accepting the evidence of the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant."
A similar proposition was discussed in case titled Akhtar Qureshi v. Nisar Ahmad 2000 SCM R 1292 wherein it was held that "statement of landlady on oath was quite consistent with her averments made in the ejectment application, neither her statement was shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict the said statement--Rent Controller, in circumstances, was fully justified in accepting the evidence of the landlady and ordering the eviction of the tenant"
9. In view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Issue No, 2 was rightly resolved by the learned Rent Controller, Quetta Cantt in favour of the respondents/applicants.
10. As far as the Issue No, 3 "whether respondent is bad pay master?" is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that during the course of pendency, this issue was rescinded by the trial Court as such, need no discussion.
11. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to their long standing established business is concern, the tenants cannot be permitted to say that their long standing established business would be uprooted on account of their ejectment, but the fact remains that rehabilitating a land lord, the tenant must make premises for the owner and find out an alternate accommodation. In the present case the appellant has enjoyed tenancy rights for almost thirty years, they cannot claim a lifelong tenancy rights in the said property. Refer Muhammad Naseem Khan v. United Bank Limited PLD 2002 SC 753.
12. The view formed by the Rent Controller in the present case, on the face of record appears to be well-reasoned and in consonance with the spirit and object of law, even otherwise, this is also the right of the land lord to pick and choose the property for his personal bonafide need.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, which is not open for interference by this Court and appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to cost. However, the appellant is directed to vacate the possession of said premises to the respondent/applicants within six 6 months from this judgment.