1. This First Rent Appeal is directed against order dated 14-3-1985 of learned VII Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby eviction has been granted on the ground of personal need.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellants before me namely M/s. A.E. Sons Ltd. Are tenants and respondents namely M/s. Eastern Express Ltd. Are landlords (hereinafter to be referred as such) in respect of godown No.B/4 situate on Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan Road on monthly rental of Rs.262.30. Ejectment application was fled in the Court on 22-3-1977 under section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground that landlords required demised premises bona fide, for their own personai use as their business as clearing and forwarding agents had increased manifold and they were unable to fulfil their business obligations because of paucity of accommodation. Tenants in their statement denied claim of landlords. In evidence recorded before the Rent Controller landlords examined Abdul Aziz Arain, Manager of the Company and tenants examined their Manager Muhammad Rafiq. After evaluation of evidence, ejectment as sought was granted and tenants being aggrieved have filed this appeal.
3. Before me Mr. Tanoli, advocate for tenants made a grievance of the fact that he was not heard at the time of arguments in the Court of Rent Controller on 5-3-1985 as on that day he had gone away to Abbottabad to see his ailing father. When asked whether he sent intimation to the Court about his inability to attend for the reason mentioned above, Mr. Tanoli replied in negative stating that he could not do so as he had to rush in a great hurry as his father was reported to be in serious condition. Case diary of the record of Rent Controller shows that on 5-3-1985 Advocate for landlords was present, none was present on behalf of tenants, arguments were heard and the case was put off to 14-3-1985 for orders. However, on 12-3-1985 Mr. Tanoli filed application for grant of permission for arguments. In support of the application Mr. Tanoli filed his personal affidavit in which the fact is repeated as stated above that he was absent on that day as he was out of station due to illness of his father. It is further stated in the affidavit that absence was neither deliberate nor wilful but was due to the circumstances beyond control. After hearing the application, it was dismissed vide order dated 13-3-1985. Grievance of Mr. Tanoli is not justified for the reasons that there is no dispute about the fact that one could stay away from the Court for a valid reason or pressing need but then it is the bounden duty of that party to inform the Court and apply for adjournment on that ground. In this case on 5-3-1985 no application was filed for adjournment and no intimation was given to the Court. Even if learned counsel was in a great hurry to go away, he could have easily drafted an application for adjournment and given it to his junior or clerk or representative of his client. He could have contacted any other Advocate on telephone to request him to hold brief for him in the Court and request for adjournment. Since he was going away to Abbottabad, it could be expected that he knew that he would be away for quite some time, hence he must have made some alternate arrangements in his other cases as Well. In the circumstances, there appears absolutely no justification at all for not applying to the Court for adjournment and not intimating the Court about cause of absence. This omission cannot be condoned on any ground whatsoever. Application of the counsel for re-opening of the arguments was, therefore, rightly dismissed.
4. Mr. Veerji, counsel for the landlords has submitted in this context that on innumerable occasions case vas adjourned on the request of tenants. On 25--10-1984 last chance was given. On 28-10- 1984 side was closed but subsequently re-opening was allowed. After conclusion of evidence two last chances were given on 25-10-1984 and on 21-2-1985. In this way about 15 adjournments were granted. In the circumstances, Rent Controller was satisfied that other side was indulging in dilatory tactics so he was justified in refusing re-opening of arguments. In support of proposition reliance is placed on the case of Sadiq f Hussain Shaikh v. Farooq Ahmad 1987 SCM R 1887. In the instant case on that account no prejudice is caused because in the impugned case evidence is discussed in detail and the said order is well-reasoned and free from inherent infirmities.
5. Next point urged before me on behalf of tenants is that ejectment application as filed was not maintainable for the reason that it was signed on behalf of Company by a person, who was not authorised by resolution of Board of Directors of the Company. In support of proposition reliance is placed on the case of Iftikhar Hussain Khan v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation PLD 1971 SC 550. No doubt.
6. In the reported case, requirement as mentioned above, is specified but that is applicable in a suit, while on the other hand, present case is a rent case under special law, which is saved from intricacies of Civil Procedure Code, Anyhow in the instant case ejectment application is signed by Mr. K.E. Bankwala, Director of the Company and it is specifically mentioned in the verification that he is dale authorised by Board of Directors to do so. Furthermore, in the Special Power of Attorney Ex.4 A on the record produced by Abdul Aziz Arain Manager of the Company, who gave evidence, mentions this fact that the said Abdul Aziz has been appointed for the purpose of filing the case and signing all the documents by Mr. Rustam Edul Bankwala, Director and this act is authorised by resolution of the Board of Directors.
7. Another objection has been raised that in the ejectment application signature of the Commissioner for taking affidavits is missing. Now this is a procedural lapse and office of the Rent Controller should have noticed this and asked the counsel of landlords to get the signature. It appears that omission is, therefore, due to inadvertence and no objection was taken by the tenants') regarding it in the written statement neither any such question was put to the witness who appeared for the landlords. In any case, this objection is not such which would affect the maintainability of the rent case.
8. On behalf of tenants, it was contended before me that requirement of demised premises for personal use by the landlords is not bona fide. In paragraph 4 of the ejectment application, need is described in the manner that landlords are facing grave hardship for accommodation due to heavy load in business and are unable to fulfil their business obligations. Landlords are a Company doing business of clearing, forwarding and shipping agents for various Companies noteable amongst them being Forbes, Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd., Quetta Distilleries Ltd., Forbes Colloids Ltd., and Latham Abercrombie. In paragraph 5 of the ejectment application, it is further mentioned that due to paucity of accommodation landlords have to forego their business or make such cumbersome arrangements for their trade hence it is imperative for them to have demised accommodation. In the written statement plea of the landlords is denied and stand is taken that landlords are in possession of sufficient-premises and want to let out disputed premises on rent to other concerns after obtaining huge amount of advance and `Pagri'. It is clear that according to the tenants in the written statement stand is taken that need of the landlord is not bona fide but is mala fide.
9. On the other hand, before the Rent Controller, tenants examined their Manager by name Muhammad Rafiq. In his affidavit of evidence, this witness stated that landlords do not need disputed accommodation for their personal need as they had rented out number of godowns to different persons even after filing of present ejectment application. Landlords in fact want higher rent and huge 'Pagri' from other customers that is why they have applied for ejectment of disputed premises on the ground of personal need. In the cross-examination, this witness has failed miserably to substantiate claims made by tenants in the written statement or by this witness in his own affidavit. This witness expressed ignorance about the fact that landlords had filed a case against tenants for fixation of fair rent. He was confronted with photocopy of written statement filed by tenants in R.C.No.991/1977 in which name of this witness appears in the verification clause. Ire further stated in the cross-examination that it was correct that landlords are clearing and forwarding agents of shipping but stated that he did not know that they were involved in many subsidiary groups of companies. It was further stated by him that he did not know whether landlords were working for American President Lines Amoco Oil Corporation, and Paplo Kodak etc. This witness has admitted that so far landlords have not let out any tenement on good-will. This witness was not able to quote even one case in which landlords had let out premises to other tenants after obtaining the possession on the ground of personal need. He admitted that space of disputed premises is about 400 to 500 sq. Feet.
10. From the evidence produced by the parties, it clearly appears that landlords have produced satisfactory evidence in describing their need to be bona fide but tenants had failed to prove that need of the landlords was not bona fide but mala fide. Burden was upon tenants to have produced evidence to convince the Court that need of the landlords was mala fide. In support of the proposition, reliance is placed on the case of Dr. M. Murtaza Hussain v. Muhammad Mustafa PLD 1986 Kar.199.
11. For the facts and reasons stated above, no exception can be taken to impugned order of eviction, which is hereby maintained and the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.