1. ' Appellant Allah Ditta has challenged dismissal of his Rent Case No,20 of 1989 by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, West, under an order dated 8-5-1990.
2. Admittedly respondent is tenant of the appellant in the shop in litigation bearing No,751, Urdu Bazar, B-Block, Shershah Colony, Karachi, on monthly rent of Rs,60. Rent Case No,20 of 1989 was filed by the appellant for eviction of the respondent on the only ground of bona fide personal use. The appellant claimed to be a retired Government servant and he showed his desire to use the shop in litigation for running a provisions store for meeting his increasing liabilities.
3. ' The rent case was opposed by the respondent who in his written statement controverted the only ground put forth for his eviction. Respondent pleaded that the appellant had let out other adjacent shop to a tenant 5/6 months prior on monthly rent of Rs,500. It was alleged that the appellant wanted to enhance rent of the shop in litigation. It was added that the appellant was permanent resident of Sialkot and he visited Karachi often and that his requirement was not bona fide.
4. ' After recording evidence of the parties learned Rent Controller under the impugned order dismissed the application, after holding that requirement of the appellant for the disputed shop was not bona fide. Hence this appeal.
5. ' Mr. Munawar Malik, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was a retired Government servant, having retired in 1953 and that despite his being 78 years old, he was healthy to do his job. It was conceded that the appellant had let out a shop in 1984 but it was argued that such shop did not belong to him. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasised on the point that the appellant was physically present in Court and he looked to be healthy and he had no disability for running the business in the disputed shop..
6. ' Mr. Raja Mir Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent argued that a landlord seeking eviction of his tenant on the ground of personal requirement, had to establish his bona fide and had to come to the Court with clean hands, without concealing anything from the Court. It was added that in the instant case the appellant stated in para.2 of the rent application, that he had no other property/shop in Karachi, nor he had vacated any such property previously, but in his cross- examination the appellant had admitted that he had lands in Sindh and in Punjab and that he had gifted the shop occupied by Rozi Khan to his son and that in addition to the disputed shop there was another property belonging to him. Learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out other admissions made by the appellant and argued that the appellant had demolished his own case in his cross-examination. Learned counsel cited the case of Amanullah Khan v. Hafiz Abdul Ghaffar (PLD 1985 Kar. 7).
7. ' In support of his case the appellant filed his own affidavit, as well as affidavit of Muhammad Latif.
8. Muhammad Latif stated that the appellant needed the shop in good faith for personal use as he was jobless after retirement and he wished to run general store in the shop. In his cross- examination Muhammad Latif admitted that his maternal-nephew was married with daughter of the appellant. He admitted that previously the appellant was living in Punjab. Appellant in his affidavit reiterated that he had no commercial property except the shop in litigation. He admitted that he had some quarters in Shershah but the same were not commercial. Appellant added that he needed the premises for his personal bona fide use, as after retirement he was jobless. The appellant admitted that it was in 1953 when he retired from Army service. That after retirement he did not enter into any business and joined the service in Karachi Road Transport where he served till 1972. That since 1972 he was out of service. Appellant further stated that the shop in litigation came into existence in the year 1953 and the same was previously occupied by Haider Zaman who vacated the same in the year 1977 or 1978 and then the shop was let out to the respondent at the rate of Rs,30 per month. If the appellant had a desire to start his own business, he could have started his business in the shop in litigation after 1972 when he left Karachi Road Transport and before 1977/78 when the shop was let out to the respondent. This shows that the appellant had no desire to use the shop in litigation for business purposes, before letting out the same to the respondent. There are other admissions made by the appellant in his cross-examination. He admitted that all his sons were married and were busy in their business and were looking after their lands in Punjab. He admitted that he was basically Zamindar having lands in Punjab and Sindh. He admitted that his sons were permanent residents of Punjab, but they had been visiting Karachi frequently. He admitted that his wife was living in Punjab. He admitted that his age was 78 years and he was suffering from pain in joints. All these admissions show that the appellan's sons are settled as Zamindars in the Punjab and he too was a Zamindar and he never thought of doing any business at Karachi at least till 1977/78. It is difficult to believe that all of a sudden the appellant has made up his mind to do business in his old age, when he is suffering from arthritis or arthragia. This shows that plea of doing business in the disputed shop has been raised mala fide, with a view to obtain eviction order against the respondent. Appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands. He is basically a Zamindar having lands in Sindh and the Punjab. He owned other shops which he gifted to his children. In spite of all this, he stated in his rent application that he had no other property/shop at Karachi. In his cross-examination the appellant admitted that 1/1-2 years prior in 1984 he had let out to Rozi Khan a shop which was adjacent to the shop in litigation, on monthly rent of Rs,500 which was being collected by him. Appellant claimed to have gifted said shop to his son. Appellant is also collecting rent of another shop belonging to his daughter, as stated by him. Appellant added that there were four other tenants in the same locality. One can reasonably believe all those shops to be initially belonging to the appellant. There is no explanation as to why business was not started in the shop rented out to Rozi Khan or in any of the other shops.
9. Since all sons of the appellant are settled in Punjab, any gift to any of them of a property in Sindh, looks to be Benami. The case of Amanullah Khan (PLD 1985 Kar. 7) does not help the appellant. In the said case assertion of the landlord on oath, as to his requirement of the premises for his personal use, was consistent with his averments in his application and it was not shaken in cross- examination or disproved in rebuttal. Assertion of the appellant about requirement of the shop in litigation has been completely shaken in his cross-examination in the present case.
10. In view of the above reasons, present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. These are reasons for my short order dated 2-5-1991 in identical terms.