1. IMAM ALI G.KAZI, J.- This appeal under Section 21 of- the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the judgment passed on 22-10-1987 by the with Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (West) in Rent Case No.857 of 1985. The application under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by the appellant seeking ejectment of his tenant, Umar Din, the respondent No.2 from the shop It out to him on the ground of having committed default in payment of rent and having sublet the premises to one Riaz Ahmed, respondent No. 1 herein.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal briefly stated are as follows: The appellant owns a commercial-cum-residential building comprising of two rooms and a shop on the ground floor and a room on its first floor situated on plot No. E-33, Asif Colony, Manghopir Road, Karachi. He had vide agreement executed by him on 16.11.1980 It out the shop on the ground floor to Umerdin, the respondent No.2 on payment of rent of Rs.200/- per month. Umerdin after inducting Riaz Ahmed the opponent No. 1 in his shop to look after his business disappeared from the scene in March, 1981 and Riaz Ahmed continues to be in occupation of the shop carrying on his business as a Tailor. Riaz Ahmed did not pay any rent with effect from March 1981 till October, 1982 when appellant filed the ejectment application. He claimed ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting and as he needed the shop for his bona i.e use and filed the application impleading both of them as opponents.
3. Umerdin Respondent No.2 herein filed his objections to the application and written statement claiming that he did not leave the shop voluntarily but was compelled by Riaz Ahmed the respondent No. 1 due to his acts of vandalism. He denied the other averments generally and claimed that the application itself was infructuous.
4. Riaz Ahmed the respondent No. 1 filed his written statement claiming that he was not the Sublette of the shop in question but was a tenant of the premises since 1972. He was paying rent at the rate of Rs.60/- per month initially. The rate of rent was increased by the appellant from time to time and in the year 1982 rent was increased to Rs.200/- per month which he paid to the appellant regularly.
5. The appellant refused to accept rent for the months of March to June, 1982. He then remitted the rent by money order which was also refused by him and ultimately he deposited the rent in Misc.
6. Kent Application No.2585 of 1982 in the Court of VII the Rent Controller at Karachi. He denied all the allegations in the application and asserted that the rent agreement and the two rent receipts were forged documents.
7. The appellant in support of his case examined himself and some other witnesses. He also produced a photostat copy of an agreement of rent said to have been executed by him on 16-11- 1980 in favour of Umerdin and produced two rent receipts dated 5-11-1980 and 4-2-1981 showing that he had received rent for the months of November, 1980 and February, 1981 respectively from Umerdin at the rate of Rs.200/-per month.
8. The respondent Riaz Ahmed examined himself and produced some receipts showing that he had purchased some sewing machines for his shop.
9. Respondent Umerdin did not lead any evidence.
10. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence laid by the parties in the case come to the conclusion that Umerdin the respondent No.2 was not the tenant of the premises in dispute and that Riaz Ahmed the first respondent was the tenant liable to pay the rent to the appellant. He further held that the first respondent did not commit default in payment of rent as on refusal of the appellant to accept rent he took steps and deposited the rent in Misc. Rcnt Case No.2685 of 1982. On the point of requirement of the premises for personal bona-i.e use of the appellant the Rent Controller held that he had not been able to prove that he needed it Bona fide for his personal use. He recorded his finding to that effect as the appellant had not provided the particulars of his business and factors relevant to it cither in the application itself or in evidence brought on record by him. He admitted to be carrying on business in the space in the staircase which was used by him as his shop.
11. On the basis of above conclusion he dismissed the ejectment application filed by the appellant, lt is against such order that present appeal has been filed.
12. Mr. Anisur Rahman, Advocate for the appellant in his short submissions made yesterday merely stated that the shop is situated within a house and appellant wants to use the shop as a part of his house, since he has ten children and accommodation is insufficient.
13. Mr. Raj M. Aslam Kiyani, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 sought an adjournment Tor today on the ground that due to his sickness he was not able to prepare the case.
14. Today, Mr. Raja M. Aslam Kiyani, Advocate has appeared and merely tales that the judgment of the Rent Controller be upheld.
15. Umerdin the respondent No.2 during these proceedings was ordered to be dropped as he did not contest the appeal.
16. Appellant in para 19 of the application expressed his requirement of the shop as under: "19. That the application requirements be said shop for his own occupation and use-ruption as he is very scarily running his own Karyana Shop under the staircases, the gate way of the premises/house".
17. Note: The above paragraph in is reproduced verlatum as an cantaunied in th application.
18. He reproduced the above para in his affidavit in-evidence. Photocopy of the rent agreement produced by him does not bear the signature of the landlord and shows that the rent was to be charged at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. The photostat copies of two rent receipts produced by him shows payment of rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month instead of Rs.250/- as indicated in the agreement.
19. He did not produce any counter-foils of the two receipts in question. These documents do not appear to be genuine documents as held by the Rent Controller. Even otherwise such documents by themselves can not be taken to be the sufficient proof of establishing relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and Umerdin. It may be noticed that by making a special provision in Section 5 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 agreements of tenancy entered into by the parties and executed in the manner prescribed by its subsection (1) after the enactment of the Ordinance can be produced in a merit case as the proof of tenancy and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Mere production of original deed of such an agreement will then be considered as proof of tenancy and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Production of a ^ photostat copy of agreement of tenancy without signature of the landlord, the executant and not drawn in accordance with the provision of Section 5(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 in the present case cannot be taken to be the proof of existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and alleged tenant Umerdin. In this case the document required to be proved under the relevant provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat. The appellant failed to prow such a document in accordance with the said law and in absence of any other evidence to prove the tenancy the Rent Controller was right to hold that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the appellant and Umerdin.
20. As regards the second point of requirement of the shop for personal bona- i.e use of the appellant it may be pointed out that unfortunate position in the case is that the requirement of the premises can neither be spelt out from the application itself nor from the evidence led to support it.
21. Averment made in the application on the point and evidence led in support thereof have been reproduced herein above. By such a casual approach on the point it cannot be said that the appellant had discharged his burden of proving that he needed the premises in question for his bona i.e use. It is normally required of a landlord who seeks to- eject a tenant from a commercial premises to sufficiently explain his requirement in the application itself and to support it with some tangible evidence to establish his need of the premises. In the present case both the requirements have not been made by the appellant. The finding of the Rent Controller on this point too are therefore, correct.
22. No further point was urged by the Advocate for the appellant. This appeal has no force and for the foregoing reasons is dismissed.