' The respondents filed an ejectment application against the appellants in respect of the premises measuring 2,803 sq. ft. on the first floor in the building known as Standard Insurance House, Chundrigar Road, Karachi. The respondents had averred in that application that they are carrying on business in a rented premises at the 9th Floor of Mohammadi House Chundrigar Road, Karachi, and the Standard House, purchased by them is entirely occupied by the tenants. It was alleged that the business of the respondents is increasing day by day, and therefore, the premises in their occupation has become inadequate and insufficient, for their present as well as future requirement. It was further alleged that being owners they are entitled to occupy the premises for their own business. The other ground alleged by the respondents was that the appellants have sublet the demised premises or part thereof to certain firms, named in the application without their consent or the consent of their predecessors. Ground for default in payment was also taken, but it has not been pressed in appeal.
' The appellants filed their written statement in which they denied that the premises is required by the respondents for their own use. The appellants denied that premises has been sublet to any one. The learned Controller by the impugned order holding that no default has been committed and subletting has not been established, granted ejectment on the ground that the premises is bona fide required for personal use of the respondents.
2. Mr. Syed Inayat Ali contended that the respondents being Public Limited Company and as no Resolution of the Board of Directors for filing ejectment application against the appellants has been filed the ejectment application has not been properly instituted. Suffice it to say that such an objection was not pressed before the Controller, and therefore it will not be proper to agitate it at this stage.
3. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that from the evidence produced on record, the bona fide, use and occupation has not been established. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that on this issue there is variance in the pleading and proof. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to refer to the averments in the ejectment application which have been briefly stated in the earlier part of the judgment. In a nutshell the demand made by the respondents was that they are running their office in a rented premises and as their business is expanding they want to shift to the first floor of the building in which the office of the appellants is located. In this regard reference can be made to the Respondent's notice dated 17-11- 1975 (Exh. A/1) served on the appellants before filing the ejectment application. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the notice are reproduced as follows:- "That my clients are carrying on their business on a rented premises at the Muhammadi House.
With a view to housing their Head Office and a Branch Office in their own premises, my clients had purchased the aforementioned 'Standard Insurance House.'
' That during the recent past the business of my clients has expanded and this has rendered the present premises in occupation of our clients inadequate and insufficient to meet the present as well as future requirements.
' That our clients need the premises in your occupation for their own use and occupation as they do not have any other premises at Karachi except the Standard Insurance House. Our clients are within their right to obtain possession of their own property rather than looking for an additional accommodation on rent. The requirement of our clients is bona fide. Even otherwise my clients as owner of the Standard Insurance House, are entitled to occupy it and use it for their own business instead of depending entirely on rented accommodation.
' That our clients have requested you several times in good faith to vacate the premises in your occupation and hand over "its vacant possession" to our clients for their own use and occupation, but you have failed and neglected to comply with the said demand."
' The averments made in the ejectment application are identical.
4. Now reverting to the evidence of the respondents it seems that they have examined one Tahir Ali who has stated that due to lack of space the respondents have opened their five branches-in different buildings in different parts of the city and if the premises is vacated, the appellants will keep office of their branches in one building. Therefore, in evidence the case set up by the respondents is that they want to utilise the first floor for accommodating their several branches which are located in different buildings in different parts of the city. He has given description of branches which are located at Badri Building, Handicraft Building, Tibet Centre and SITE. The witness did not state a word about the expansion of business and shortage of accommodation at the Head Office. The respondent's witness has only projected the bona fide requirement to the extent that the respondents want to accommodate all their branches at one place. The object of opening the branches of Insurance Company in an area is to generate insurance business from that area and to serve their customers there. It has never been the practice, nor it is feasible to open the branches and cluster them in one building. By adopting this procedure, the very object of opening branches will be completely frustrated.
5. Mr. Amanullah the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the fact that the respondents require the premises for their bona fide personal use includes the need of head office and its expanding business as well as accommodation to the several branches of the respondents.
This contention is not supported by the evidence on record. The respondents have pleaded their requirement on the basis of expansion of their business and to accommodate their Head Office at one place. If during the past years the volume of business of the respondents has increased to such an extent that it is necessary to shift their Head Office in the disputed building, then they ought to have produced evidence to show that the business has increased so much that the existing accommodation in their occupation is not sufficient to cater their need. In fact no proper and convincing evidence to this effect has been produced. The respondent's registered office is at Muhammadi House and no resolution has been produced to show that the Board of Directors has decided to shift the registered office, to any other place. In the evidence, the entire thrust of demand is in respect of branches only. If by expansion of business the respondents means the volume of business which has increased in the branch offices, then as observed earlier the branches cannot be clustered in one building because, it is against the very concept and purpose of opening the branches. The averment made in ejectment application and the statement made on oath are not the same. In the circumstances the requirement sought to be established in the evidence that the disputed premises is required for accommodating the branches is not a bona fide requirement of the respondents. Mr. Amanullah contended that as the statement of Tahir Ali relating to bona fide requirement of the respondents has remained unchallenged it should be deemed to have been accepted and admitted. The statement of Tahir Ali materially differs from the averments made in the application. Further it is so scanty brief and sketchy that hardly it is sufficient to establish the respondents, plea of bona fide requirement.
6. Mr. Amanullah the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that as the building was purchased for personal use of the respondents they being the owners are entitled to ejectment.
The building was purchased in the year 1972 and for the first time notice was issued on 17-11-1975 and the ejectment application was filed in the year 1976. If the intention of the respondents would have been to occupy the premises immediately on purchase, they would have not taken steps for ejectment after about 4 years. Furthermore merely because a landlord is in occupation of a rented premises he cannot insofacto obtain an ejectment of tenant in respect of his own premises unless he proves his bona fide requirement.
' The learned Controller has held that the subletting has not been proved. The respondents have filed cross objections and have ,challenged the finding of the learned Controller. It is an admitted position that the appellants are the tenants of the premises, and there are about boards of 6 Companies, which have been fixed on the premises. The appellants have explained that they are sister concerns of the appellants as their partners are directors or partners of these firms/ companies. From the evidence it seems that the appellants have established that no member of staff of these Companies/Firms occupies any space in the disputed premises. The sign boards have been fixed only for the purposes of receiving mails. From these facts it is clear that these firms/companies do not have any interest in the tenancy of the appellants, nor the respondents have been able to establish that the appellants have ceased to occupy the premises or recover any rent from them. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Controller on this issue does not require any interference. The appeal is allowed.