1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against impugned order, dated 18-2-1982 of learned XVII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby ejectment has been granted on the ground of personal need.
2. ' Briefly stated relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent Sirajuddin (hereinafter referred as the landlord) filed an application for ejectment on 2-8-1972 in the Court of the Rent Controller against appellant M.S.Khan (hereinafter to be referred as tenant) on the ground of default for about 6 months in the payment of rent and personal need. Disputed premises in fact are four shops adjoining each other in Azeem Market situate on Plot No.2, Block II-D Nazimabad No.2, Karachi-18. Consolidated rent of all these four shops is Rs.120 per month. Premises in question are required by the landlord for use as office at the Site. Written statement was filed on 17-11-1972 in which allegations were denied and plea was raised by the tenant that landlord pressed for enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.150 per month, which was resisted and rent was sent through Money Orders, which was not accepted and then the same was deposited in the Court of Rent Controller in Miscellaneous application. On the ground of personal need, plea was taken by the tenant that requirement was not bona fide as the landlord has permanent office at 10, Saleh Mohammad Street Karachi. It was further stated that premises in question were previously used by the landlord as office but then tenant was inducted into possession. In the Court landlord examined himself and tenant examined himself and documents were produced. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the landlord did not press the issue of default, hence finding was given by the trial Court only on issue of personal need and that too in affirmative resulting in grant of ejectment against the tenant.
3. ' Before me it has been argued on behalf of tenant, who is appellant, that evidence produced in the Court of Rent Controller was not properly evaluated and further that if that evidence is properly appraised, it would show that not only the need of the landlord is not bona fide but is mala fide because there is evidence on the record that in addition to other things, the intention of the landlord was just to increase the rent and harass the tenant. Before taking up the evidence for proper assessm ent I would like to state here that the thrust of the argument raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the landlord was that the learned Rent Controller had properly assessed the evidence and landlord had done his duty by producing satisfactory evidence in support of the plea that premises were required for personal need of the landlord. Learned counsel cited before me cases of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan v. Khawaja Mustafaul Hasan 1984 CLC 3093, Mohammad Ayoob Khan v. Muhammad Suleman Soomro 1984 CLC 50, Ghulam Sakina v. Khaliq Bari 1984 CLC 71, Salimsons Ltd. v. Mrs. K.M. Ahmad 1984 CLC 431, Mst. Mariam and others v. Abdul Rashid 1984 CLC 1571 and Muhammad Ilyas v. Qamaruddin 1984 CLC 757. Legal position enunciated in these reported cases is not in dispute. In fact these reported cases lay down as to what kind of evidence is to be produced in support of plea of requirement of premises for personal need. Normally burden lies on the landlord to prove the need to be bona fide for which evidence is to be produced, which is considered by the Court to be satisfactory and sufficient. Landlord is to prove only good faith and if bad faith is alleged the same is to be proved by the tenant, which means that landlord is to prove bona fides and tenant is to prove male fides if the same are alleged by him. These are the guidelines which are reflected in the reported cases cited above.
4. ' In the instant case tenant has taken up the plea that need of the landlord is not bona fide and he has given reasons for it. First reason is that premises in question as such were let out to the tenant by the landlord in the year 1964 and before that the same premises were being used by the landlord as office. It is therefore, stated that how can the landlord turn back and say that he wants the premises again for use as office, when knowingly he had let out the premises and maintained proper main office at Saleh Muhammad Street. There is not much force in this contention for the reason that if the landlord wants to come back in the same premises to use them as his office, he can do so provided he produces sufficient evidence to satisfy the Court about the bona fides of his need. Tenant cannot tell landlord as to what to do. Second reason given by the tenant was that several shops in the same building became vacant and they were let out by the landlord, who did not use them as his office. On this point the case of the landlord is that he wanted only the accommodation in question for the reason that these are four shops side by side with the facility of bath room and laterine and this accommodation is best suited for office. Other shops were not utilised by him for office for the reason that there was no facility of toilet in them. Additionally it is stated that landlord wants to have office in Azeem Market because it would be convenient to him and he would be able to keep an eye on the development work and also would be able to receive rent properly from the other tenants.
5. ' It was then contended on behalf of the tenant that the need of the landlord is not' bona fide because there are several landlords and respondent is only one of them and there is litigation going on between them and a notice was also published in the newspaper on behalf of one of the landlords Exh. 3, whereby tenants wee warned to be careful as attempts were being made to obtain enhanced rents and rent out premises on Pugris. There is no force in his contention for the reason that right from the beginning of the proceedings tenant has not challenged the right of landlord to receive rent. In fact tenant has been paying the rent to this very landlord who has been issuing receipt to him. When the landlord was in the witness-box, no such challeng was made to him that he could not legally recover rent from the tenant. In fact his title as such was not challenged.
6. ' Next ground on which evidence of landlord is called in question is that the intention of the landlord was to pressurise the tenant to enhance the rent and not to acquire premises for personal bona fide need. On this ground tenant has produced sufficient evidence to show male fides of the landlord. First of all in the application for ejectment filed by the landlord on the record of the Rent Controller there is no mention that rent was increased from Rs.120 to Rs.150 per month. On the contrary it is specifically mentioned in the application that rent is Rs.120 per month. In the written statement in paragraph 3 tenant has alleged specifically that landlord had pressed the tenant to increase the rent from Rs.120 to Rs.150 per month. After which the tenant sent the rent by Money Order which was refused and then the rent was deposited in the Court. When the landlord came to give evidence before the Rent Controller, in his Examination- in-Chief he did not utter a single word about his demand for enhancement of rent from Rs.120 to Rs.150 per month. When this fact was suggested to him in cross-examination, he denied it. Learned counsel of the tenant has invited my attention to Exh. 4 and Exh.
5. Exh. 4 is the receipt which shows that rent of Rs.360 was accepted by landlord as Rs.60 for half month of October, 1970 at the rate of Rs.120 per month and Rs.300 as rent for the months of January and February, 1971 at the rate of Rs.150 per month. Exh. 5 shows that rent of Rs.600 was accepted 'in two instalments of Rs.300 each. First instalment of Rs.300 was accepted as rent for 2 months beginning from 16th October to December, 1970 at the rate of Rs.120 per month. Another instalment of Its.300 is shown as rent accepted for March and April, 1971 at the rate of Rs.150 per month.
7. Learned counsel for the tenant argued before me that after the landlord started deducting the rent forcibly at the rate of Rs.150 per month the tenant resisted this enhancement and sent a notice of the Advocate which is Exh. 7 on the record. In this notice there is a clear complaint with regard to the charging of rent at the rate of R.150 per month instead of Rs.120 per month. The notice is dated 14-6-1971. Reply was sent by the landlord which is dated 21-6-1971 in which allegation is denied and it is stated that tenant on his own and voluntarily enhanced the rent and there was fresh agreement between the parties. Before me also learned counsel for the landlord argued that the tenant himself offered enhanced rent which was accepted by the landlord and thereafter went back to pay the original rent and the landlord was quite helpless so he agreed to accept the original rent. I fail to under stand this argument. If landlord was so helpless and was at the mercy of the tenant, then he could at least state these facts in the application for ejectment and in his Examination-in-Chief. Why landlord did not disclose these facts and why did he conceal these facts from the Court. The landlord was confronted with this fact in the cross-examination and the tenant has produced not only the receipts but also notice and reply of the landlord which are Exhs.
8. 7 and 8. Not only this but the landlord in this cross-examination has denied the fact that he demanded the enhanced rent. Exh. 9 is again notice sent by the counsel of the tenant to the landlord in which the fact is reiterated that the tenant at no stage had agreed to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.150 per month. Exh. 11 is another notice dated 23-12-1971 showing that attempt was made by the tenant to continue paying rent at the rate of Rs.120 per month but since landlord did not accept the rent, the tenant started depositing the rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.123/71 and such intimation was passed on to the landlord. All these documents have been produced by the tenant and the landlord considered it fit only to deny the fact that he never demanded enhanced rent. These documents are more than enough to show male fides of .the landlord. The need of the landlord does not appear to be bona fide. The original intention of the landlord appears to be to increase the rent and when he failed to get the enhanced rent from the tenant,, he has filed this application for ejectment on the grounds of default and personal need. Now it is understandable why the landlord at the final stage of argument did not press the issue of default.
9. The reason is that the whole story about the enhanced rent was unfolded when the landlord was confronted with receipts and exchange of notices. Then landlord only contested the proceedings on the issue of personal need. Since the landlord concealed all these facts from the Court, I hold that tenant' has proved bad faith and male fide on the part of landlord. In the circumstances and for the facts and reasons stated above I set aside the impugned order of ejectment and allow the appeal. There will be, however, no order as to cost.