1. ' These two first rent appeals under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 are directed against the orders, dated 24-4-1983 and 11-12-1982 of the Vth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he dismissed Rent Cases Nos.4554 of 1982 and 2534 of 1982.
2. ' The dispute in these appeals is in respect of Shops Nos.1 and 2, Commercial Plot No.E/10 in Block No.4, Drigh Road, Karachi and the respondents are tenants of the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs.180 and Rs.300 respectively. The appellant averred in his eviction applications that he was an employee in the Defence Services of Government of Pakistan, 102 Maintenance Unit, Pakistan Air Force as a civilian Assistant Foreman in the Quality Control Squadron. It was the case df the appellant that on attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant was ordered to have retired from the said service with effect from 1-7-1982. It is the case of the appellant that prior to his said retirement, the appellant was on leave preparatory to retirement for about six months before the said date of retirement. While the appellant was on leave, he was anxious to earn livelihood after his retirement on and from the said date. The appellant sent notices, dated 13-3-1982 to the tenants informing them that the premises in question was required by the appellant for his personal use after his retirement from Government service from 1-7-1982 and he wanted to carry on his business in the said shops after his retirement. As the respondents did not vacate the shops in dispute, he filed Rent Cases Nos.2534 of 1982 and 2554 of 1982. The respondents resisted the eviction applications. The appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in support of the eviction applications. In rebuttal Muhammad Parvez respondent No.1, Muhammad Afzal, Tahseen Ahmed and Tauseef Ahmed (F.R.A. 677 of 1983) and Shaikh Muhammad Khalid and Salahudin filed their affidavits-in-evidence. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. ' The Controller after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the eviction applications vide orders, dated 24-4-1983 and 11-12-1982.
4. ' The appellant being aggrieved against the orders, dated 24-4-1983 and 11-12-1982 of the learned Controller has preferred separate appeals on the grounds mentioned in the memos of appeals.
5. ' Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions:--
(1) The learned Controller has erred in arriving at the finding that the appellant is in occupation of another shop that is in adjoining Shop No.l.
(2) The learned Controller has wrongly, illegally and redundantly come to the conclusion that the appellant's case suffered from mala fide.
6. ' On the other hand Messrs Khawaja Sharaful Islam and Rehmat Elahi the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the findings of the learned Controller are in accord with the evidence on record and the eviction applications filed by the appellant are mala fide as he is in possession of commercial premises and the applications are barred by the provisions of section 14(2) of the Ordinance.
7. ' Mr. Sharaful Islam raised the contention that the appellant was not the employee and as such the question of his retirement does not arise. The employee of the Defence Services was summoned and his deposition was recorded by me. After recording the evidence of the witness, the learned counsel did not press his objection.
8. ' It is an admitted position on record that the appellant was in the Defence Services of the Government of Pakistan and had retired from service at the age of 60 years on 1-7-1982 and, therefore, he could file proceedings under section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The appellant filed two separate eviction applications against the respondents. The appellant in para. 4 of the eviction applications averred that "the applicant vide a legal notice, dated 13-3-1982 under registered A/D informed the opponents of his retirement and also of his intention to carry on his own business in the said shop (Shop No.1 and Shop No.2) and, therefore, asked the opponents to vacate the said shop within two months from the date of this said notice". The respondents filed separate written statements and resisted the eviction applications. The respondents pleaded in their written statements that the appellant and his son own various immovable properties both commercial and residential.
9. ' In eviction application No.2534 of 1982, the learned Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant is in possession of Shop No.2. In view of this finding the learned Controller dismissed the eviction application vide order, dated 11-12-1982.
10. ' It is pertinent to note that the appellant filed eviction application No.4554 of 1982 in respect of Shop No.l. This eviction application was dismissed vide order, dated 24-4-1983.
11. ' I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. It is an admitted position that there are only two shops in the building standing on Plot No.E/10. It is also an admitted position that the appellant filed proceedings against both the tenants. A landlord is entitled to carry on his business in his own shop. Therefore his bona fide cannot be disputed in these circumstances. Nonetheless the building consists of two shops on the ground floor which are separately occupied by the respondents. The appellant filed both these eviction applications on the precise ground that he was to be retired from Government service and he wanted to start his business in the disputed shops. The appellant did not aver in his applications that the disputed shops to be converted into a single unit. He suppressed the factum of his seeking eviction of his tenant from his other shop. It was by sheer diligence the respondents have been able to discover the correct position. It is certainly a vital circumstance which would cast grave doubt on the bona fides of the appellant in requiring the shop in question for st sting business. The conduct of the appellant in suppressing this important fact certainly militates against his bonafides. Reference in this context be made to the case of Dr.Roshan H. Nanji v. Mst. Razia Khatoon (1984 CLC 2343) and Mst. Fatima Bi v. Issa (1986 CLC 2635) in which my brother Mr.Justice A.Razzak A. Thahim observed that need for occupation of both parties not proved, the bona fides requirement would be doubtful in circumstances. In the case of Qamarudin v. Hakim Mahmood (PLD 1983 Kar. 570) my learned brother came to the conclusion after giving cogent reasons that mere non-disclosure in the rent application of the fact that the landlord owns other premises apart from the premises in respect of which the eviction application is filed, standing alone, may not be sufficient to non-suit the applicant/landlord but in his view the three factors, that is, neither in the eviction application nor in the notice given by the landlord before filing the eviction application nor in his examination-in-chief, the landlord mentioned that he owned two other shops, in combination mentioned therein are sufficient to disentitle the landlord from claiming the relief. I am in respectful agreement with these decisions of my learned brethren Nasir Aslam Zahid and Abdul Razzak Thahim, JJ., for the reasons given by them in these judgments and as such I am of the opinion that the orders of the learned Controller by which he came to the right conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the relief of eviction, are correct.
12. In the present case also the appellant has not proved that he required both the shops for establishing his business. Had he been D in actual need of a shop, he could have applied for one shop not for both the shops. So, his eviction applications are liable to be thrown over-board on the ground.
13. The upshot of the whole discussion, therefore, is that the appeals are devoid of any merit. They are accordingly dismissed with E no order as to costs.