' This is a first appeal from the order of the Rent Controller dated 6th February, 1980 whereby he had accepted the ejectment application of the respondent/landlord in respect of a shop bearing Nos.'13, 14 and 15 converted into one shop on plot No, 671 in Shershah Colony, Karachi and directed the appellant/tenant to hand over its possession to the respondent within six months. The grounds on which ejectment was sought by the respondent were that the appellant had committed default in paying the rent, that the appellant has caused damage to the shop in question, that he has constructed a "Chapra" in front of the shop in contravention of the agreement and lastly the respondent required this shop for his own bona fide use. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant has not committed any default because he has been depositing the rent with the Rent Controller after the same was refused by the respondent, that the appellant has caused damage to the property and that the respondent/landlord required the premises in question for his bona fide use. The issues regarding the construction of Chapra' and default in payment of rent were decided against the landlord, but the other two issues regarding damage to the property and bona fide requirement of the landlord were found in favour of the latter.
2. The appellant had engaged Mr. Shamsul Qamar Warsi in this case as his Advocate, who had made several adjournment applications. Ultimately on the last date, i. e. 20th December, 1981 he again sent an application through the appellant for adjournment. It was ordered on this application that the matter should be heard in the second week of January 1982. However, when the appeal was fixed today which is the last day of the last week of January, 1982, the appellant came again along with an application for adjournment which was rejected. He was, therefore, allowed to engage another Advocate if Mr. Shamsul Qamar was not available, but was specifically stated that the matter shall not be adjourned. The matter was kept aside and when it was taken up later Mr. Anisur Rehman filed his power and made request for an adjournment which was disallowed, but he was given time to get prepared and argue the case today. The case was, therefore, taken up in the last and arguments were heard. Learned counsel for the appellant expressed his inability to argue the case in spite of the fact that sufficient time was allowed to him to get prepared, hence the arguments of Mr. Munawar Abbas were heard.
3. The main ground which has been urged in support of the landlord's claim, is that he requires this shop for his personal use. The appellant has alleged that the landlord/respondent has got 32 other shops also, but does not say that all those shops a in possession of the landlord. He admits that they are on rent with other tenants, although he orally stated before the Court that 3-4 shops are in possession of the landlord, which fact the latter, who was present in the Court, emphatically refuted.
4. The learned Rent Controller has held on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties that the respondent was at some time doing hotel business which he is not doing now for want of the premises and that the three shops in dispute which have now been converted into one, are suitable for the bona fide use of the respondent.
5. So far as other 32 shops of the landlord are concerned, it may be stated that it is the choice of the landlord to choose any of them or the disputed shop for his personal requirement. The fact that he has got other A shops would not preclude him from choosing the particular shop for his own personal use if according to him the premises in question are suitable for his purpose. It is on the record that the three shops in dispute are situated on one plot and have been converted into one shop. In support of the above assertion, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on 1973 SC MR 185. It will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the observation made by the Supreme Court on this point "If a landlord possesses more than one house in the same urban area, the choice as to the house in which be would like to live himself is surely a matter within his prerogative and discretion, and the law does not give either to the tenant or to the Rent Controller the power to determine where the landlord should personally reside."
6. So far as the bona fide requirement of the respondent is concerned, there is categorical statement of the respondent on this point that he wants the premises for his bona fide requirement. It is now established law that on the question of bona fide requirement of a landlord his statement should be taken to be sufficient proof of the fact if it is consistent with his averments in the application. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the case of Hassan Khan v.
Munawar Begum. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on this point, which is based on the categorical statement of the landlord which is also supported by two witnesses, is unexceptionable. He was, therefore, justified in allowing the ejectment application of the respondent.
7. Regarding the issue of damage to the property, there does not appear sufficient evidence on record except a photograph which does not give idea about the damage or extent thereof. The appellant has, however, refuted this allegation. This plea of the landlord, therefore, should have been held as not proved.
8. However, as the personal requirement of the respondent has been proved, hence no exception can be taken to the ejectment order recorded by the Rent Controller.
9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted three months time to vacate the premises. PLD 1976 Kar. 8321 1