ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---- This appeal under Section 15 of the Balochistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, is directed against the Order dated 22nd October 2018 (hereinafter referred as "the impugned Order and decree ") passed by learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller HUB, (hereinafter referred, as "the Rent Controller), whereby the application filed by the respondent was accepted and the appellant was directed to hand over the possession of the shop situated at Zahid Medical Center main RCD Road Hub to respondent.
2. Facts 'of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction application agains t the appellant before the Rent Controller stating therein that he is the landlord/owner of shops situated at Main RCD Road, Tehsil Hub District Lasbella, out of his landed shops, the respondent/applicant rented out two shop to the appellant against the monthly rent of Rs.14,520/- per month and accordingly entered into a rent agreement regularly . As the above shops are part of Zahid Medical center and the applicant wants to enhance the medical Center for use of doctors diagnostic office with alteration of structu re, hence the shops are required to be vacated for personal bona fide need. In this regard a legal notice was issued to appellant with direction to make alternate arrangements within a period of one month for shifting of his business and thereafter respondent/ applicant filed application under Section 13 of the Balochistan Rent Restriction Ordinance for eviction before the rent controller .
3. In rebuttal appellant raised certain legal objections and refuted the contention of the respondent on the ground that the respondent wanted to increase the rent of the shops in question, whereas in actually the said shops are not required to the respondent for enhanc ing the business, thus the appellant prayed for rejection of eviction application.
4. The Rent Controller , out of pleading of the parties framed the following issues:
1. Whether application of the applicant under Section 13 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is without cause of action as the shop in question is not bona fide required to the applicant?
2. Whether shop in question is not part of Zahid Medical Center and the same exist in Zahid Roonjha Market on Main RCD Road?
3. Whether applicant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
4. Relief?
5. At the trial, the respondent/applicant produced two witnesses and also recorded the statement of attorney for applicant, whereas in rebuttal the appellant produced three witnesses in support of their claim. On conclusion of trial, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction application, vide order dated 22nd October 2018 and directed the appellant to hand over. the possession of the shops to respondent/applicant, whereafter instant appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for appellant contended that order of learned rent controller is against the norms of justice; that learned rent controller ignored the statement of appellant; that the respondent did not record his statement on oath; that the order of learned rent controller is based on surmises and conjectures which is not sustainable in eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Lastly prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that shop in question is required for personal bona fide need; that respondent wants to enhance his Zahid Medical Centre and wants to use his shop as doctors diagnostic office; that the shop is required for enhancement of business and law permits the respondent to choose any of his property for his personal use and business; that the order of learned rent controller is well reasoned and the respondent has proved his case through unshaken, confidence inspiring evidence regarding the personal bona fide need of the disputed shop; learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the cases of PLD 1995 Lahore 469 and 2000 CLC 274.
8. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. Record trans pired that respondent filed an application for eviction before learned rent controller Hub for taking over of his shops for enhancement of his business for use of doctors diagnostic office with alteration of structure and is required for personal bona fide need while on the other hand learned counsel for the appellant controverted the claim of respondent by filing reply wherein stated that the shops are not part of the Zahid Medical Center . The landlord/respondent witnesses narrated that the shops in question are needed for enhancement of his business and supported the application.
The attorney of landlord recorded his statement that shops are required for enhancement of his business for use of doctors diagnostic office adjacent to Zahid Medical Center . The statement of landlord is firm in all aspects. The law does not impose any embargo on person to established any other business when he has already running is business similarly , landlord is entitled to choose or pick anyone of his shops for his personal use. It is choice of landlord to choose any of his property for his personal use and suitability of shop cannot be determined by tenant.
It is sole prerogative of landlord to choose any shop for his business. In this regards reliance is placed on the case of Mehmood Khan v . Muhammad Ibrahim 2011 CLC 1606 relevant portion whereof is as under:- "11. As far as owning of other properties by the respondent is concerned, admit tedly, the landlord is entitled to choose or pick anyone of his shops for his personal use and occupation. The suitability or sufficiency of an accommodation for a landlord cannot be determined by a tenant or the Rent Controller . Landlord's desire to retain a specific property for his use and occupation could do so without any legal difficulty in his way and it is none of tenant's business to tell landlord to keep particular property for his use and let out the other one. The landlord is entitled to choose or pick anyone of his shops for his, personal use and the contention that landlord should have got vacated some other shop is not valid."
9. As far as objection raised by learned counsel for appellant that landlord himself did not appear before the learned rent controller for recording of his statement on oath, the objection of learned counsel is has no force because law does not prohibit for appointing any attorney for recording the statement on oath before the court, mere non appearance of landlord would not effect his bona fide claim. Needless to mention here that attorney is son of landlord and the statement of attorney was straight forward, confidence inspiring and did not shake during cross-examination. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Abdul Salam PLD 2016 Balochistan 76 Relevant portion whereof is as under;- "---The statement of the attorney under the law is to be construed as statement of principal unless contrary has been proved. Even otherwise, the mere non-appearance of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 will not affect the bona fide claim of the respondents, particularly when there was no queries/ explanatio n required to be offered by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 except their personal bona fide use and occupation."
10. The statement of witnesses of landlord on oath with consistent of his averment in the ejection application despite cross-examination the appellant failed to brought anything in his favour . The statement of respondent quite confidence considered to sufficient to prove the contention of respondent. Sole testimony of the landlord is sufficient to personal bona fide need. Reliance is placed on record in the case of Bakht Zamin Shah v. Faiz Muhammad Khan 2003 CLC 1 121. Relevant portion whereof is as under:-- "6. In determining whether a particular premises required by landlord for personal use, fundamental importance is to be attached to statement of landlord himself. Section 13(4) of the Ordinance is an adequate safeguard against abuse of provisions of section 13(3) (a) (ii) by landlord. Where statement of landlord is confidence inspiring and no material is on record to detract from its veracity , such statement should be given all important weight and shall not be treated as statement of an interested person. (1992 SCMR 437). A landlord is primarily responsible for establishing his claim through cogent and reliable evidence. The need has to be reasonable and bona fide and not actuated by bad faith and ulterior motive. Good faith means honestly and not motivated by oblique motive."
11. The learned Rent Controller after proper appraisal of material available on record has come to the right conclusion and the eviction order of the Rent Controller is beyond any interference.
For the above reasons, the instant appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed with the direction to the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the shops in question within two months to the respondent. The parties are left to bear their own costs.