' This appeal under section 21 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the tenant/appellant against the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller on ground of personal and bona fide requirement.
2. The appeal was originally filed against Haji Umer Ahmed the landlord of premises who died during the pendency of appeal and, therefore his 2 sons, 3 daughters and a widow have been impleaded as respondents in this appeal. The ejectment application was instituted by the deceased landlord against the appellant on grounds of personal and bona fide requirement and infringement of terms and conditions of tenancy. However, the Rent Controller held that the deceased landlord failed to establish infringment of terms of tenancy but granted the application on ground of personal and bona fide fequirement.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends before me that the ground of personal and bona fide requirement urged by the deceased landlord, was linked with the allegation of infringment of terms of tenancy and, therefore the landlord having failed to establish the alleged infringement of terms of tenancy the application on the other ground namely personal and buna fide requirement of deceased landlord could not be granted by the Rent Controller. The argument of learned counsel has no substance. It is not disputed that the two grounds urged by the deceased landlord in his application were separate and independent grounds recognised by law and on each one of these grounds the tenant-appellant could be evicted from the premises independently, if the landlord succeeded to establiseh any one of them. But it is urged that in the present case the ground of personal and bona fide requirement urged by the deceased landlord was depended on a positive finding on the other ground. I have not been able to find any material on record to support the above submission of the appellant's counsel. I, therefore, reject the contention of learned counsel.
4. In so far the personal and bona fide requirement urged by the deceased landlord is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence on record did not establish the same. It is contended that the landlord allegedly wanted to start his own business in the disputed premises alongwith his sons who never appeared in the witness-box to support the version of deceased and therefore it cannot be said that the deceased landlord succeeded in establishing the personal and bona fide needs urged before the Controller. It is further contended that the deceased landlord having died during pendency of the appeal the ground of personal and bona fide requirement in so far as it related to his own requirement also came to an end with his death and, therefore the order of ejectment is now liable to be set aside on this ground also.
5. The personal and bona fide requirement was alleged by the deceased landlord in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the rent application which is as follows :- "4. That the applicant who was ruined in his business had wound up the same and had given the said shop/godown to the opponent on rent.
5. That the applicant and two sons Sulleman and Rakho also have .Recouped in business not only this but his grandsons have also grown up and thus want to start their business in the said shop/ ' Godown and thus requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation and for his children and grandchildren."
' The appellant in his written statement before the Rent Controller denied the allegations made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application by the deceased landlord in the following terms :-
3. Para. 4 denied. The applicant after earning sufficient and making out sufficient estate property wound up his business several years back.
4. Para. 5 denied. The sons are grown up and carrying on their business independently for last many years."
' In his evidence before the Court the deceased landlord categorically stated that prior to the letting out of the premises to the appellant he used to run the business under the name and style of "Umer Biri" in which he suffered heavy losses and, therefore he was forced to wind his business and gave the premises on rent to the appellant. He also stated in his evidence that he has two sons, namely, Suleman and Rakho and two grown-up grand-children namely Ahmed and Ishaq and since his sons have now recouped in business he wanted to restart business with his sons and grandsons in the shop occupied by the appellant. In his cross-examination the deceased landlord stated that he has only one shop in Hyderabad city and his one son owns a market in Latifabad who has now started a business of furniture in front of Municipal Corporation in a rented shop while the second son was sitting idle and that he had closed his earlier business in the year 1969 (wrongly typed in evidence as 1979) and the premises was lying locked until 1975 when it was rented out to appellant. He also stated in his cross-examination that his son who owned the market had filed ejectment case against his tenant and that upto the age of 40 his elder son was not doing any business and that his other son left the studies about 2/3 years back. The suggestion given to the deceased landlord in the cross-examination that he did not require the premises for the use as alleged but the main aim was to enhance the rent was denied. The above evidence of the deceased landlord was consistent with averment made in the application and nothing in rebuttal was brought on record by the appellant. The appellant in his evidence before the Court alleged that the deceased landlord did not suffer any losses in the previous business but he started another business for which he did not require the premises occupied by him and, therefore the same was let out to him. In so far the sons and grandsons of the deceased landlord were concerned it was alleged by the appellant in his evidence that they are well set in business and they also owned a market and several other shops in Latifabad. It was also asserted in evidence that the purpose of filing of ejectment application was to enhance the rent to Rs, 500 per month. In the cross-examination the appellant admitted that the house of deceased landlord is adjacent to the shop in his occupation and that at the time it was let out to him by the deceased landlord it was lying closed. The applicant further admitted in cross-examination that he owns two other shops in the same area where the disputed shop is situated. In reply to another question the appellant claimed that the deceased landlord asked him to increase the rent and then he will be allowed to continue as tenant in the shop. It was denied by the appellant that in fact he offered increase in the rent. The appellant pleaded ignorance of notice served by the deceased landlord prior to the institution of rent case but admitted his signature on Exh. 12 which is a reply to that notice. He denied that the deceased landlord required the shop for personal bona fide requirement and that his son. The two witnesses examined by the appellant stated that the appellant demanded enhanced rent of Rs, 500. The affidavits filed by them are identical except the change of name. However, one of the witnesses namely Iqbal admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant had asked the deceased landlord to increase the rent and not to insist on his eviction from the shop. He also admitted that the applicant used to do the Biri business in the shop but thereafter the shop was lying closed. On an assessment of the above evidence the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant had succeeded in establishing his presonal and bona fide requirement and in my view the conclusion arrived at by him is neither contrar to evidence on record nor it is perverse.
6. From the above evidence it is quite clear that the deceased landlord discontinued his business on account of losses suffered by him in the year 1969 and he let out the premises to appellant in 1975. He also stated that he now intended to restart his business and that one of his sons was idle in these days. The demand of landlord was neither unreasonable no lacked bona fide. The only point on which the applicant was resisted was that the landlord wanted enhancement of rent. This plea is advanced by almost in every rent case by a tenant but it is hardly established in any case.
In the present case also the appellant was unable to establish the same. The learned C counsel for the appellant contended that the landlord did not examine his son with whom he wanted to start his business but in the absence of any suggestion in the cross-examination that his son was not willing to join the deceased landlord and that he was not sitting idle, the pn-examination of the son could not prove fatal to the case of deceased landlord. After considering the evidence of the applicant on the issue of personal and bona fide requirement I am satisfied that the Rent Controller rightly concluded that the deceased landlord had succeeded in establishing his personal and bon fide need in respect of the suit premises. In so far the plea of the appellant that the deceased landlord has since died during the pendency of appeal and, therefore his personal and bona fide requirement has also come to an end. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel as the application was filed by the deceased landlord not only on the ground that he personally needed the premises but he also pleaded that it was required for his sons also who will do business jointly with him. The application was granted by the Controller on both the grounds and, therefore, it cannot be said that with the death of deceased landlord his need as expressed in case also came to an end.
7. I find no good ground to interfere with the order of Rent Controller and accordingly dismiss this appeal but will make no order as to costs. The appellant is allowed four months time to vacate the premises subject to his paying the monthly rent during this period. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.