1. This appeal calls in question the order passed by the learned Vlth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi, dated 4-12-1983 whereby the eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent was dismissea. The facts giving rise to this appeal are, that the appellant had let out a room to the respondent in a building bearing No.5/26-A, B.I. Area, Liaquatabad, Karachi at a monthly rental of Rs.45. In 1980 the appellant filed an eviction application against the respondent on the ground that he wanted to re-construct the building after demolition of the original structure and that the respondent had installed a Lathe Machine in the room which had caused damage to the building. According to the appellant the necessity for re-construction of the building had arisen as the children of the appellant, who were minors at the time of letting out the building, had become majors and that the appellant's elder sons had got married and his two younger sons and daukhters who were also of marriageable age, had to get married. It was further averred in the eviction application, that the existing accommodation in the building was insufficient for the needs of the appellant. Alongwith the eviction application, the appellant also filed a copy of sanction obtained from competent authority for re-construction of the building. In the written-statement filed on behalf of the respondent, the assertions made by the appellant were denied. It was also disputed that the premises in question were required by the appellant in good faith as eviction applications against other tenants had not been filed by the appellant. I have heard Mr. Rafiq Khanzada for the appellant and. Mr. Khajumal for the respondent. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were, that the learned Rent Controller had committed a serious error as he had failed to appreciate that the appellant had sufficiently established his bona fides which were evident from the building plan which had been approved by the concerned authority.
2. He al go attacked the observations made by the learned Rent Controller, that the appellant had no sufficient funds to raise a new construction as according to Mr. Khanzada, such evidence was not required for establishing good faith of the landlord. Reliance was also placed on Abdul Malik v. Mst.
3. Saeeda Khatoon 1985 .0 L C 839 and Ibrahim and 3 others v. Nazir Printing Works 1983 CLC 842. In both these cases it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the landlord could establish his bona fide need for re-construction by producing approved building plans in respect of the same before the Rent Controller. In the first case it was also held that the tenant's plea that landlord had no sufficient funds for raising construction or non-eviction of other tenants could not defeat the landlord's bona fides. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant had also succeeded in sufficiently establishing that the respondent was responsible for causing damage to the property by using a Lathe Machine in the portion of the premises rented out to him. The argument of Mr. Khajumal on the other hand, firstly was that since the appellant had based his case for re-construction of the building on the ground of his personal bona fide requirement which he had failed to establish, the learned Rent Controller could not have considered the two issues in regard to re-construction of the building and personal bona fide needs of the appellant separately.
4. Reliance was placed in this respect on Attomal v. Allah Bux PLD 1985 Kar. 650 a case decided by this Court, wherein Ajmal Mian, J. (as he then was) he held, that where the landlord had linked his case for re-construction of building with his personal requirement and the Court had disbelieved the ground of personal requirement, the same would adversely affect the bona fides of the landlord in relation to his plea for re-construction. As regards the other ground of causing damage to the building by the respondent, it was argued by Mr. Khajumal that the appellant had failed to establish that the Lathe Machine, allegedly installed by the respondent in the portion of the building rented to' the respondent, had caused any damage to the building. As far as the first point is concerned, no doubt, clause (vi) of ;section 15(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 does not provide that the landlord in order to seek ejectment of the tenant from the rented premises on the ground of re-construction of the building is obliged to prove good faith as he was originally required to do under the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the case cited by Mr. Khajumal relates to the time when the latter Ordinance was still in force, but in my opinion, the legal position as stated does not make any material difference since the appellant based his case of re-construction of the building wholly and solely on the ground of his personal bona fide requirement. If the appellant had not linked his case for re-construction of the building with his personal bona fide requirements, then in such case the appellant certainly would not have been under any obligation to prove good faith or bona fides as in the new Ordinance, the words "reasonably and in good faith" do not appear in clause (vi) of section 15 (2). However, since the applicant himself linked his case with personal bona fide use, in my opinion, the learned Rent Controller was quite justified in not considering the two grounds in respect of personal requirement and re-construction of the building separately. Now, coming to the bona fides of the appellant's requirement, the case of the appellant was that the existing accommodation in the building was insufficient for the requirements of the appellant and his children owing to which he wanted to re- construct the building. When insufficiency of existing accommodation was being pleaded by th appellant, then it became incumbent upon him to provide details about the accommodation available with him, with particular reference to th number of rooms or total area covered by the building. Such particulars admittedly were not provided by the appellant before the learned Rent Controller. Furthermore, the evidence, as also discussed by the learned Rent Controller, further showed that the original building consisted of six rooms and according to the building plan submitted by the appellant the proposed construction would have consisted of only four rooms.
5. However, whatever be the case, in order to deprive the tenant of the rented premises of such premises on the ground of personal requirement, the landlord has to establish his bona fides and good faith clearly and definitely, but in this case the same appears to be wanting and in my opinion, the finding given by the Rent Controller was rightly against the appellant.
6. Coming to the next ground of the respondent having cause damage to the building by his Lathe Machine, although it was halfheartedly argued by Mr. Rafiq Khanzada that oral evidence of th D appellant and his witnesses should have been believed but in order t succeed on this ground, the appellant had to establish that the acts committed by the tenant were likely to impair the material value or utility of the premises. Of course if oral evidence adduced by the appellant in this respect is taken to be sufficient then the respondent can be ejected on this ground, but I agree with the learned Rent Controller that the nature, of evidence produced on the point was not sufficient to establish a case of conversion of use of the rented premises. 1, therefore, agree with Mr. Khajumal that the appellant had failed to establish any case against the respondent and consequently his application for eviction of the respondent from the rented premises was rightly dismissed. For the aforesaid reasois the findings of the learned Rent Controller are maintained and the appeal is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T. .