Muhammad Yunis landlord/respondent (hereinafter to be called as the landlord) filed application for the eviction of Ghulam Haider tenant/petitioner (hereinafter to be called as the tenant) under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 from Shop No.CA-154/6/356 (Awan Radio House) Chick Centre, Peshawar Cantonment on the ground of requirement bona fide for personal use and also on account of the tenant's having damaged the suit property due to misuse thereby impairing the use, outlook and utility of the suit property. It was averred in the petition that the suit shop was an evacuee property which was transferred to the landlord under a valid P.T.D. And he served a notice of transfer under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compenstation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 on the tenant on 1-3-1975. The landlord thereafter filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of default in the payment of rent as well as the bona fides personal need on 1.2-6-1975 but the same was dismissed as the tenant was not liable to ejectment within six years of the receipt of the notice under section 30 of the Act ibid. On the expiry of the said period the instant application was filed. The tenant contested the application and in his written reply admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but denied the other allegations contained in the eviction petition. Necessary issues were framed in the case and evidence, pro and contra thereon, recorded. On the appraisement of 'the evidence so produced, the learned Controller of Rent's Peshawar Cantonment (hereinafter to be called as the Controller) vide his impugned order dated 6-2-1989 ordered the eviction of the tenant from the suit shop on the ground of bona fide personal need of the landlord. The plea of the landlord regarding the damage to the suit property was not accepted. Hence the instant appeal.
2.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
3. It is the case of the landlord that he requires the suit shop for his personal use, right from the time of its acquisition from the Settlement Department and that this very ground was taken by him as far back as 1975 when he filed the earlier eviction petition against the tenant but since the law had given protection to the tenant of evacuee shops for six years, his prayer was not considered by the then Controller of Rents Peshawar Cantonment. The landlord is pot occupying any other shop in the urban area where the suitshop is situated, suitable for his need. He appeared as PW.1 in support of his application and stated on oath that he requires the suit shop for his bona ride personal use and offered to tender surety bond guaranteeing to occupy the suit shop personally and not to give it rent to any body else and in case of failure to occupy the same, agreed to the forfeiture of the bond. However, he admitted under cross--examination that at the moment he is staying at Karachi in connection with his business but wants to shift his business to Peshawar where he already posseses residential accommodation. He also admitted that he had inherited certain shops from his father alongwith other co-heirs which are on rent with the different tenants. The tenant in his statement in Court, on the other hand, deposed that the landlord intends to sell the suit shop and in order to fetch exorbitant price, he wants to evict him and that his plea of bona fide personal need is a mere excuse for his eviction. No other evidence was produced by either side.
4.Under section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, if the Controller feels satisfied that the landlord requires commercial building in good faith for his own use, he can make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified in the order. It is thus the satisfaction of the Rent Controller which is the sine qua non A for passing an order in the eviction petition. The mere fact that the landlord has been carrying on his business at Karachi will not disentitle him to seek the eviction on the ground of personal requirement because he could not be expected to sit idle during the time when the tenant had statutory protection from eviction and during the pendency of the instant eviction petition. In this respect the judgment of the Supreme Court in case `Fatal Azim and another v. Tariq Mahmood and another' reported as PLD 1982 SC 218 is relevant wherein the going abroad of the landlord during the pendency of the application for eviction was not considered fatal to the continuance of the proceedings on .The ground of lack of bona tides. The same august Court in case Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das reported as 1973 SCM R 185, observed that if the landlord possesses more than one property of similar nature in the same urban area it is his prerogative and discretion to select any of the said properties for his bona fide, personal use and not the tenant or the Rent Controller. The good faith of the landlord is fully established from his earlier eviction petition as well as his offer to tender security as mentioned above. Moreover, subsection (6) of section 17 of the g Act ibid the tenant has a right to apply to the Rent Controller for restoring him the possession of the building-if the landlord does not occupy the building within one month of the date of the obtaining of its possession. There is no factual or legal error in the impugned order of the learned Controller.
5. Resultantly finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.