1. ' This is a landlord's appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 23rd of July, 1980.
2. The background forming the basis of this appeal is as follows:- ' Both appellant and the respondent are carrying on motor parts business in the same building. The appellant's shop is on the front side while the respondent's shop is at the back of the building. It appears that originally these premises were designed as residential units but it is admitted position in the case that now they are being used as commercial premises. Inside loft has been made and some other structural changes have been effected to make these premises suitable for the purpose of motor parts business. Such changes have been effected by the appellant as well as the respondent.
3. ' The shop in question with adjoining premises is being used by the respondent/tenant for his business. In order to connect these two units the intervening wall has been demolished by the respondent and a loft has also been erected within the disputed shop. There was some dispute between the respondent and the 'previous landlady. This dispute was resolved by a compromise where under the old landlady had agreed to sell away her property to the respondent. While negotiations were still going on the property was sold to the present appellant on 2-12-1978 and he became the landlord of the respondent. This transfer has been challenged by the respondent and a suit for specific performance has been filed by the present respondent against the old landlady which is still pending disposal.
4. ' After purchasing this property the appellant filed ejectment application on 1st July, 1979 against the respondent on the following grounds:-
(i) That he had raised and demolished certain structures within the shop and on account of this alteration and modification the value and utility of the premises had diminished.
(ii) That the premises were required by the landlord/applicant for his personal use.
5. ' The respondent in his written statement denied these allegations. He tried to make out a case that the appellant and the respondent were both competitors in business and the object of the appellant/landlord was merely to push out the respondent from the market and thus to eliminate the competitor in business. That the need sought to be made out in the application was not genuine and bona fide.
6. ' The parties examined themselves and the learned Rent Controller after framing issues disposed them of in favour of the respondent. He has rejected the application of the appellant by his order dated 27th of July, 1980. I have read this order and examined the reasons of the learned Rent Controller. On the question of alteraticut4 and modifications it is admitted position that the premises have been redesigned and are modeled in the present form to suit the commercial purpose for which they are being used. The respondent is carrying out business in these premises for the last 10 years and his defence is that these alterations or modifications were effected with full knowledge and consent of the landlord long long before and surely before the property was purchased by the present appellant. That after the purchase of the property by the appellant no change has been affected and as such the present appellant has no cause of action. Although this position has been contested by the appellant but there being word against word the Ran Controller has rightly concluded that the version of the respondent seems to be nearer truth and reality and as such the plea of landlord has been rejected for want of proof. It may be added that no notice was served on the respondent complaining about these alterations and modifications when they were in progress. Possibly if these changes were made after the present appellant appeared on the scene, he would have surely protested by sending a notice which admittedly was never sent.
7. As a matter of fact the respondent has produced a letter dated 31st March, 1974 which is Exh. 5 in order to show that he had obtained the permission from the previous landlord. Mr. Sadik learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that this permission was given at the time when the present landlady had not even inherited the property and was not the full-fledged owner by that time. There may be more than one reason for this. Possibly the present landlady was managing the property and was competent to accord sanction for such changes or may be that even after inheriting the property she did not raise any objection. These are matters of details which could be investigated before the Rent Controller. In absence of any positive evidence no findings in favour of the landlord could be recorded to deprive the respondent of his tenancy which is now 10 years old. I do not see any reason to change this finding and substitute it in favour of the appellant. The findings of the Rent Controller on this issue are, therefore, affirmed.
8. So far as the question of personal need is concerned, it is always a debatable issue whether the request for possession is a demand for possession simplicity or is motivated with genuine need and is made in good faith. It may be stated that both the parties have their own problems in this crowded city of Karachi where dearth of accommodation has become proverbial. One cannot say that request of the landlord to claim possession is always motivated with increase of rent. There may be cases in which such a desire would be genuine. The urge to expand a running business may be one of the incidence to show the bona fide and good faith of the landlord. Each case must be very closely examined and relative conveniences and inconveniences to be caused to the parties be measured.. It must be recognized that the landlord who is the owner of the property has a right to claim his property to run his own business but a tenant occupying the property has been provided with a protection by the Statute to ensure a security of his possession. This security always casts a shadow on the normal rights of the landlord which become a difficult problem to resolve. The Rent Controller on the assessment of the contentions of the parties has to decide this delicate issue whether the desire of the landlord should over-weigh the considerations of equity to such an extent as to deprive the tenant from his livelihood which is to some measure guaranteed by the protection of the Rent Laws given to a tenant. Perhaps the landlord has not been able to satisfy learned Rent Controller to that extent. He seems to have remained unimpressed by the version of the landlord that he wants to expand his business and these premises would be legitimate put to use for that purpose and I must say that there are good reasons for holding such a view. The landlord unfortunately has not given any details as to what new elements have intervened to justify such an expansion. There is no other detail in what manner the business is being expanded. Whether any other new member of the family is being inducted into the business or some new machinery is to be installed. He has also not disclosed what further steps have been taken to expand that business. It is also on the record that he has purchased several other units of accommodation, shops and houses in this very building. It would have been better if some details were given to show that the ejectment of the opponent was the only course left to the landlord and the business could not be expanded by utilizing other units in the same building which admittedly he has recently purchased. In the absence of the details of his requirement the landlord failed to impress the learned Rent Controller that his anxiety to acquire this premises was coupled with bona fide and good faith. On these findings also I do not feel inclined to disturb the order of the learned Rent Controller and substitute these findings in favour of the appellant.
9. ' The result is that this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.