1. ' This appeal is directed against the impugned order, dated 30-8-1983 passed by VI-Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he has granted eviction on the ground of personal need.
2. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent is landlord and appellant is tenant (hereinafter to be referred as such) in respect of demised premises which are two shops joined in one situate in house described in detail in the application for ejectment filed in the Court of Rent Controller. Ejectment application under section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Ordinance) has been filed on 17-7-1982.
3. Ejectment is sought on the ground that landlord needs the premises in question for his three sons who are unemployed. There is no dispute between the parties about the rate of rent. Tenant has denied the claim of the landlord. In the evidence landlord filed his affidavit in evidence and he was cross-examined. On the other hand tenant examined himself and two other witnesses namely Muhammad Naqi and Muhammad Zarar.
4. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether evident brought on the record by the parties is sufficient to warrant finding by the Rent Controller to the effect that premises in question are bona fidely required by the landlord for his sons. So far the pleadings a concerned in the application for ejectment in paragraph 4, landlord ha very clearly stated that he required the premises in question for his three sons namely Muhammad Shahid Hussain, 2ulqarnain and Zulnorai as they had given up education and he wanted them to carry o business of Radio and T.V. Parts. He re-iterated the same thing his affidavit in evidence in paragraph 5. He was cross-examined b the tenant but in the whole cross-examination it appears that landlord was not cross-examined on this point excepting two questions which were replied by the landlord to the effect that his sons would carry o business in the shop such as selling T.V. And Radio. Parts. The other question was replied by the landlord to the effect that he had resource to run such shop and there was one suggestive question put to the landlord by the tenant to the effect that the application for ejectment was filed in order to obtain enhanced rent and this has been denied.
5. ' In the affidavit in evidence tenant himself has dilated upon other matters such as enhancement of rent by landlord from time to time and one other plea he has taken that landlord is motivated against him for the reason that the tenant had appeared as a witness in the case filed by landlord against, another tenant Muhammad Naqi and the landlord had been pressurising the tenant to withdraw his affidavit in evidence as a witness in that case, but tenant was not agreeable to this proposition, hence landlord had filed this case. On the question of personal need in paragraph 6 of the affidavit there is just denial simplicitor that applicant did not require the shops for his sons. Not a single word more than that is uttered by the tenant in the affidavit and on the contrary in paragraph 6, which contains the denial made by the tenant, emphasis in this context is placed by him on the fact that the landlord wanted to increase the rent and, therefore, he had filed this case as a pressure tactic. However, in the cross-examination tenant has stated that it is not a fact that sons of the landlord are jobless.
6. ' Defence witness Muhammad Naqi produced by the tenant stated in the affidavit of his evidence that landlord had filed a case against him for eviction from the shops on the ground of personal need for himself. 'Further in the affidavit it has been emphasised that landlord constantly went on increasing the rent. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that tenant Hafeezur Rehman appeared as a witness in his case filed against him by the landlord.
7. ' Muhammad Zarar stated in the affidavit that in his presence landlord spoke to the tenant to the effect that if tenant did not give evidence in the case of Muhammad Naqi then the landlord would withdraw the case filed against him. In the cross-examination this witness denied the suggestion that he was servant of the tenant but admitted that he was working with him as apprentice.
8. The case of the landlord is very clear that he wants the demise premises for his three sons who are unemployed. Landlord has given the names of his sons and their ages and has also stated the reason describing his personal need. On the other hand the tenant has denied and stated in specific terms that it is incorrect that sons of landlor are un-employed. In other words tenant has attributed mala fides t the landlord. The burden, therefore, shifts to tenant to prove mal fides or bad faith attributed by him to the landlord. Since it is claimed by the tenant that sons of the landlord are not un-employed, it is for the tenant to prove the same. He has not produced positive evident to show that sons of the landlord are not un-employed but are employee somewhere else or have their own other sources of livelihood. No such evidence has been produced by the tenant. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant argued that age of the third son Zulnorain was given by the landlord as 16 years old as such he was minor in law an premises could not be acquired for him.
9. Learned counsel failed t satisfy me as to why the premises could not be acquired for him Moreover landlord has not stated specifically that he required premise in question for his third son Zulnorain only. In fact landlord ha stated that he wanted demised premises jointly for his three sons and he intended to open for them business of selling T.V. And Radio Parts. In these circumstances there is no legal impediment in the way o Zulnorian even if at that time he was 16 years old to sit in that show and help his other two brothers.
10. On this point the tenant has failed miserably and could no produce positive evidence to show that need of the landlord was mal fide and was not bona fide. Instead of producing evidence on thi point, the tenant chose to support this contention by raising other pleas. Firstly that landlord did not produce his sons for whom th premises were required. Reply to this is that it is not necessary for landlord to produce his sons in the Court if he has succeeded t produce sufficient and satisfactory evidence in describing his persona need and in so doing even evidence of landlord himself is sufficient Tenant has not denied that landlord does not have three sons as describe by him. On the other hand tenant has admitted that landlord doe have three sons, does not dispute their ages and the only fact which is disputed is that they are not un-employed but unfortunately in this context tenant has not produced any positive evidence. Another groun raised is that landlord failed to show his financial resources as to ho he will be able to set up his business. Landlord was in the box but h was not cross-examined on this point. One question was asked to whic he replied that he has financial resources but no further question was asked. Plea is not available to the tenant that application for ejectment cannot be filed by the landlord for the reasons that he has been demanding enhanced rent. If in the past rent was enhanced, then it was done with the consent of the tenant as well and this ground alone would not disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal need.
11. ' So far the question of pressure tactics is concerned as averred by the tenant that he had appeared in the case of another tenant against the landlord and the landlord had asked not to give evidence but when tenant did not oblige him the landlord had filed this case. Tenant had produced Muhammad Naqi in whose case he claimed to have appeared as a witness.
12. Muhammad Naqi has stated in the cross-examination that tenant did appear in his case but he has not stated anything further than that the landlord pressurised him and asked him not to give evidence in that case. For that tenant has produced one other witness Muhammad Zarar, who is a interested witness and has admitted that he is working as apprentice with the tenant. Even on this point evidence produced by the tenant is unsatisfactory.
13. ' Learned counsel for the tenant has produced a number of authorities which are distinguishable and do not apply to the fact of this case. He has also relied upon the case of Syed Anisur Rahman v . Mst. Sara Bai PLD 1985 Kar. 714 and submitted that mere wish. Convenience, whim or fancy of landlord, would not be enough to show that landlord required premises in good faith. Ratio of this decision does not help learned counsel and on the contrary goes against his contention, It is held on this decision that landlord must allege and prove certain circumstances or facts which go to prove his requirement. Relevant factor would have to be objectively considered before the question in good faith was decided by the learned Rent Controller. In the reported case no details were given in the application for ejectment by the landlord as to what kind of business was proposed to be set up in the premises. In the instant case the facts are different and landlord has stated specifically that he wants to open shop for selling Radi and T.V. Parts for his three sons who are un- employed. In view of the facts that it is not denied by the tenant that landlord has three sons and further failure of tenant to produce positive evidence in proof of his assertion that they are not un- employed, no further evidence is necessary to be produced by the landlord.
14. For the facts and reasons stated above I am satisfied that evidence is properly evaluated by the learned Rent Controller and I do not find F any reason to interfere with the impugned order which is hereby maintained and in the result the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The tenant is directed to hand over vacant possession within three months.