1. ' The respondent is the owner and landlord of a shop situated at Hardas Street, Bohra Pir, Karachi.
2. The appellants are the tenants at a monthly rent of Rs.100 per month since June 1973. That on 4th January 1979 the respondent moved an application praying for ejectment of the appellants from the premises on the ground of personal need. It was also alleged that the appellants had committed default in payment of rents for a period of four months. The opponents in their written statement denied both the pleas. They contested the assertion of personal need and also did not accept that any default had been committed. A tentative rent order was passed under which the appellants were directed to deposit the arrears of rent from 24th August, 1978 to 31st July, 1979 amounting to Rs.1,125 before 15th September, 1979. A further direction to go on depositing the furture monthly rent from August, 1979, before 15th of each succeeding month, till the final decision of this case was also given. Thereafter the case proceeded. The respondent filed his affidavit of evidence.
3. His son Muhammad Saeed and a neighbour Muhammad Yakoob also filed the supporting affidavits. Respondent and his son Muhammad Saeed were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Muhammad Wasiuddin Khan attorney of the appellant filed his affidavit in his evidence and denied all the allegations made by the respondents. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:
(1) "Whether the opponents are wilful defaulter? If so since when?
(2) Whether the applicant requires the disputed premises for personal bona fide use and the use of children?"
4. ' He answered issue No. 1 in the negative and the issue No.2 in the affirmative. Both parties felt aggrieved against this order. The respondent filed an appeal being Appeal No.16 of 1983 against the findings on issue No.1 while the present appeal has been filed by the appellant on the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.2. These cross appeals have been heard by me today. As this appeal is being allowed and the finding of the learned Rent Controller accepting the grounds of personal need are being confirmed by this judgment; the learned counsel for the respondent has withdrawn the Appeal No.16 of 1983. On the question of personal need, the learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the respondent being a Washerman by profession wants to establish his son in the Laundry business. That he genuinely and bona fide requires the premises for this business. These findings are based on the evidence of the respondent and Muhammad Saeed. To quote the respondent in his own words I would reproduce para. 7 of his affidavit in evidence: "That I have three sons one of them namely Saeed is out of work for over two years. The premises is situated in the thickly populated area. We are washermen by profession. My son being out of work for a long time desires to open a Laundry in the demised premises to earn his livelihood. I am an old man and dependent on my child Saeed, who hardly gets casual work which is not sufficient to meet our expenses. The period of tenancy has expired and I want that my son may have his own Laundry to earn his living. I shall be able to do some work with my son in his Laundry, otherwise I cannot carry on my profession nor can get any job elsewhere."
5. ' In para. 8 he added: "I say that I require the premises bona fide and in good faith for running a Laundry by my son Saeed where I shall also be able to do some work. I say that the averments in the reply of opponent are incorrect."
6. ' Muhammad Saeed also filed his affidavit in evidence and stated as follows: "That I am son of the applicant. I am unemployed since middle of 1977. I am a washerman by profession. I want to run my own Laundry in the shop premises now occupied by the opponent bank. I hardly get some casual work. My parents are also dependent upon me."
7. 'The question of personal need being a factor relating to the personal knowledge of the landlord, it is difficult to effectively disprove such an assertion. Normally word of the landlord shoud be believed and unless there are substantial grounds to show that the plea is not A genuine, there is no reason why he should be denied the use of his own property. All that is alleged against the landlord in the present case is that while this, presumably uneducated and simple folk was under the cross-examination he has lapsed and inadvertently stated that he wants the premises for "my residential purpose". The learned counsel contends that the premises are being used by the bank as Commercial premises and cannot be claimed by the landlord for a residential purpose. But the learned counsel overlooked the fact that this one sentence cannot be torn out of its context and read to the prejudice of the respondent, in such a manner as to completely wash of the entire story narrated by him in paras. 7 and 8 of his application quoted above and a detailed version elaborating the circumstances and the purpose for which the premises were required. This word "residential" is to be examined in the context and in the setting of the entire story and if this is just merely a slip of tongue or unconscious utterance, he cannot be penalised for this. Such is the reading of the situation by the Rent Controller which he has carefully recorded in analysing issue No.2 of his judgment. Carefully examined this cannot be said to be the admission of the respondent. It is just an inadvertent expression of a person of the level of washerman who had come to Court to claim possession of his property and was facing the cross-examination of a trained lawyer and was not as articulate as an educated person could be. Perhaps he did not realise that when he comes to claim his property he should be mindful of the distinction of a commercial and a residential purpose and should weigh his words before uttering them. All along he has been asking for possession to start the Laundry business and all his pleadings towards this end cannot be brushed aside merely because the word residential has fallen from his lips at one place. The learned counsel for the appellant quoted 1983 CLC 1149 and 1983 CLC 1418. The facts of this case were totally different and distinguishable. In that case the landlord having as many as 12 shops was occupying some of them and wanted to get possession of the shops by ejecting the tenant and it was rightly held: "The onus to prove that the mentioned two vacant shops and the other six in their possession were not suitable for their requirement lay heavily on the landlord. Not only that he had also to show that the premises from which he is seeking eviction of his tenant would provide him better premises for the business than those already in his possession."
8. ' In the present case a small back portion is occupied by the respondent/landlord for his residential purpose and the disputed premises, he is trying to obtain for running a Laundry. There is no allegation that he has any other shop or any other accommodation to be used as a shop. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel is 1983 CLC 1418. At p. 1420, the following passage occurs: "It is now well-established that the assertion on oath by the landlord that he requires the premises for his own use should be accepted as bona fide if such assertion is consistent with his averments in application and not shaken in cross-examination, as laid down in case-law reported as Hassan Khan v. Munnawar Begum."
9. In my reading the observations are contrary to the stand taken by the learned counsel. In the present case the respondent's assertions have been unambiguous and consistent all along and as observed by me earlier the accidental and inadvertent use of the word residential cannot be said to be a positive admission inconsistent with the detailed version of the respondent/landlord and his son clearly making out a case of a bona fide personal need. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is dismissed with cost. The appellant should vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent by or before 31st July 1984 subject to their payment of the monthly rent in terms of the order of the Rent Controller. with cost.