1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Appellant and respondent before us are tenant and landlord respectively (hereinafter to be referred to as `tenant' and `landlord') of Shop No.8 in Hussain Square, North Nazimabad, on a monthly rental of Rs.120. The landlord filed ejectment application in Rent Case No.4513 of 1982 in the Court of VII th Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the said Ordinance') on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, subletting and personal need. In the written statement the tenant denied these allegations and three issues were framed. In the evidence landlord and tenant examined themselves. After appraisement of evidence ejectment application was dismissed vide order, dated 15-3-1986. Landlord filed F.RA. No.200 of 1986 in the High Court of Sindh, which was allowed vide judgment dated 24-1-1990 whereby finding of the Rent Controller has been reversed on the issue of personal need and on that ground eviction is allowed.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the evidence and finding of the High Court in the light of contention that in the instant case, during the pendency of the proceedings, another shop has been acquired by the landlord, which fact would reflect upon bona fides of his requirement.
3. In the proceedings before Rent Controller in the ejectment application landlord described his need in para.5 that he is jobless and requires shop in dispute for his personal bona fide use to earn his livelihood by opening a medical store, in which line he has previous experience. Landlord in the same paragraph has further mentioned this fact categorically that he had also applied for eviction of tenant from adjacent Shop No.7 for the same purpose. In the written statement tenant has denied requirement of landlord to be bona fide and assertion is made that landlord is owning 13 shops rented out, out of which 10 are in Hussain Square, and is residing in a Bungalow on 400 Sq.
4. Yds. It is also stated that landlord owns 8 flats situated in Hussain Square, above the shops which are on rent. As such income of landlord is between 7,000 to 10,000 rupees per month. It is also averred that landlord has no children. As such he is affluent and his need for shop is not and cannot be bona fide. It is also mentioned in the written statement that landlord also had applied for ejectment of tenant from Shop No.7 which would react upon bona fides of his requirement in the instant case.
5. Landlord filed his own affidavit of evidence in which, in paragraph 5, he has reiterated his personal need and further stated, more specifically and categorically, that since shop required to be vacated in the instant case would not fulfil his requirement, he had applied for ejectment in respect of Shop No.7 also and such case was pending before the same Court. In cross-examination landlord had explained that although he has no son or daughter he has adopted one son of his brother. It is further explained by the landlord that he is jobless since 1972-73 and before that he was selling medicines at Sukkur and he has licence for that purpose. Landlord had admitted that he owns 10 shops in Hussain Square and has denied owning shops at Hyderi. There is cross- examination on other issues which is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. There is no further cross-examination to the landlord on the issue or question of personal need, which shows that there is no serious challenge to his claim about requiring the shop in dispute for opening a medical store. Tenant in the affidavit of his evidence has repeated the same facts on the question of personal need of the landlord as stated by him in the written statement. In the cross-examination on the issue of personal need tenant stated voluntarily that landlord sold out two shops two years back and one shop was lying vacant. Tenant also admitted that he did not say so in his written statement. There is nothing in the evidence of the parties on the record about the issue of personal need.
6. Under section 15 of the said Ordinance landlord can apply for eviction of tenant on the grounds mentioned therein including the ground that the premises are required by landlord in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. The only requirement in this provision for landlord is to show that he requires the premises in good faith. This landlord has stated very clearly in unequivocal terms in the application which he has filed for ejectment as well as in his statement on oath in the Court of Rent Controller. According to the landlord he is jobless since 1972/73 and previously he was selling medicines at Sukkur and he has a licence for such business. There appears no legal impediment in the way of the landlord if he wants to open a medical store and do business in spite of the fact that he is rich and has no children. The landlord can do whatever he likes with his property and if interest of tenant is involved because property of landlord is rented out to him, then his rights are protected under the rent law. If landlord does not contravene provisions of the rent law, which allows him the relief, then it is not open to the tenant, and even for that matter to the Court, to make a comment as to what the landlord should do or should not do. In the instant case the landlord has stated on oath that he wants to open a medical store and for that purpose he needs shop in this case as well as adjoining Shop No.7 for which he had initialed proceedings separately. Since both shops are adjacent to each other it appears that the landlord wants to obtain both these shops in order to open a medical store for which he has a licence and also previous experience. This assertion as such of landlord is not seriously challenged by the tenant nor its credibility tarnished in the cross-examination. So far affordability of landlord is concerned tenant does not dispute that landlord is rich and resourceful and can open a big medical store for which 2 shops could be required. Lack of cross-examination on this point suggests that this assertion is not disputed or doubted by the tenant. It would not be out of place to mention here that to guard interest of tenant it is provided in section 15-A of the said Ordinance that if landlord after obtaining possession of demised premises from the tenant on the ground of personal requirement, relates it to another tenant or puts it to a use other than personal use within one year of such possession, then landlord would be punished with a fine which shall not exceed one year's rent and evicted tenant is allowed under the law to apply to the Controller for an order of restoration of disputed premises to him.
7. In support of what is stated above reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Siddique v.
8. Muhammad Shoaib 1986 SCMR 1207. In which it was held that evidence of landlord was sufficient to prove his need and law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact because it is quality of evidence which determines its acceptance. In the case of Muhammad Sharif v. Nisar Ahmad 19&g SCMR 1587 contention of tenant was not accepted that landlords had other shops belonging to them and, therefore, they could not have sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement, particularly when it was not mentioned in the application of landlords that they had other shops or the other shops were not suitable for the expansion of their business.
9. Contention raised on behalf of the tenant before us that during the pendency of the proceedings landlord has acquired another shop which would recoil on the bona fides of his requirement is not tenable for the reason that claim of landlord as made by him and stated in the application and his evidence is not seriously disputed or challenged by the tenant in the cross-examination to the landlord. Questions could have been asked from the landlord as to how big medical store he intended to open and for which how much accommodation area-wise was required. In the absence of such challenge and questions it cannot be said that landlord has refused unreasonably to accept the shop which became vacant during pendency of the proceedings for opening medical store. In any case landlord is very clear in his stand that he wants two shops, Nos.7 and 8, which are adjacent to each other for the purpose of opening a medical store.
10. Moreover, it is for the landlord to pick and choose and he knows best what is good for him.
11. In the case of Muhammad Latif v. Hakim Nisar Ahmed 1986 SCMR 651 on behalf of tenant it was contended in the Supreme Court that the High Court had failed to appreciate that another shop belonging to the landlord had fallen vacant before the ejectment application was riled, which was sufficient for the requirement of landlord's son and the ejectment application was thus not competent. It was held that this plea had been already examined by the High Court and rejected on proper and valid grounds. It was further observed that it was for the landlord to choose premises suitable for the requirement of the trade or business which his son wished to carry on and not for the tenant to dictate to him the choice in this regard. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
12. For the facts and reasons stated above judgment of the High Court, impugned in this appeal, is hereby upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
13. We allow six months, time to the tenant to vacate the premises in the case subject to the payment of rent.