' The appellant has impugned the order dated 31-1-1987, passed by the IVth Senior Civil Judge/ S.J./Rent Controller in Rent Case No,311/86, which was dismissed with costs.
2. The appellant had filed an application under Section 15(i)(ii) and (v) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the respondent for his eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and electric charges, nuisance and personal bona fide requirement. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and did not press the appeal with regard to other two grounds, which were also rejected by the learned Rent Controller.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice para.6 of the ejectment application in which it is stated as under:- "That premises in question is required in good faith for his own occupation and for the occupation and use of his children."
4. The personal bona fide requirement of the appellant was denied by the opponent stating that the appellant has malicious intention to evict the respondent as is evident from various cases pending in Court between the parties. In affidavit-in-evidence the appellant has stated as follows:- "6. I say that the premises in question is required by me, in good faith for my own occupation and for the occupation and use of my children. The adjoining Shop No,4 was voluntarily surrendered by the opponent and its possession was handed over to me. The shop was annexed to my house and I have not re-let the same. After getting possession of Shop No,3 from the opponent I have no intention to re let the same and I shall annex the same as well in the residential portion. The plot is a residential one and I have no intention to continue the same for commercial purpose as I have a very bitter experience on that account. I vehemently deny that I have dispossessed the opponent from the Shop No,4 by force. The factual position is that the shop in question ion was voluntarily surrendered by the opponent and physical possession handed over to me. I deny that the opponent had paid rent upto the October, 1986."
5. According to the learned Counsel for appellant there is sufficient material on record to establish the bona fide requirement of the appellant which called for eviction of the tenant, but the learned Rent Controller grossly erred in not accepting the said material on record. In support of his contention he placed reliance on PLD 1990 SC 394, in which it was held that the provisions of eviction in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 are less cumbersome in comparison to what was contained in the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. It was further held that what the landlord is to prove is that the premises are required by him in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. Next case relied upon is 1986 SCMR 1207. In which it was held that there was no illegality either of law or procedure when the solitary statement of the landlord was being accepted so as to establish his bona fide needs.
6. There is nothing in para.6 of ejectment application suggesting that theappellant wanted to convert his shop into a residential premises by annexing the same to his house. On the contrary the impression one gets from a bare reading thereof is that he had intended to use the shop as a shop.
However, in his examination-in-chief he has changed his position and stated that he required it for residential purposes. According to the learned counsel for the appellant change in his requirement or change of character of commercial premises into residential premises, will not destroy or demolish the ground of personal bona fide requirement available to him under the Ordinance.
7. The respondent made appearance in person and contended that the appellant had throughout shown high-handed and used fully illegal force to dispossess him. First he was forcibly evicted from shop No,4 and now motivated by malice the appellant wants to evict him from Shop No,3. He referred to appellant's affidavit of evidence showing how firstly the appellant started demanding increase of 400% in rent and upon his refusal how he used coercive measures to dispossess him from the said Shop No,4. He referred to two suits filed by him against the appellant both in the year 1982. In 1985 he was constrained to file Rent Case No,1646/85 under Section 11(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as the appellant had disconnected the electricity. With this background it was urged by him that the appellant had come to Court with unclean hands. Apart from this, it was argued by him that the appellant has failed to prove his case and there is a word against word. He placed reliance on 1984 CLC 2837, in which it was held that a landlord is required to submit facts necessary to prove that he requires premises for his personal use.
8. It is pertinent to note that although it is the case of the appellant that he required the premises in question for his personal use and for the use of his children, nowhere any particulars have been furnished by him about his children or other family members. Similarly he has not stated anywhere as to why and for A what business he requires the said premises. No particulars, details or material have been furnished anywhere as to his personal bona fide requirement or of his children. The appellant has, therefore, failed to establish his case. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.