' The appellant has been directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within sixty days from the passing of the impugned order dated 24-9-1991 by the Second Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi Central.
2. The application' was filed by the respondent against the appellant among others on the ground of personal requirement. Although it had also been alleged that the appellant had made alterations and additions in the demised premises without consent of the respondent and thereby impaired its value and utility, however, it appears that the ground was not pressed before the learned Controller. Suffice it to say that the same has not been made the basis for the said order passed by the learned Controller.
3. In support of the ground in regard to personal requirement, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent was that she required the premises consisting of a shop for her personal bona fide use as she wanted to run a garment shop in the said premises. It was further stated that the respondent had also requested the other tenants to vacate two other shops in their possession. In the affidavit the statement earlier made by the respondent in the pleadings was once again reiterated. The respondent stated that she was an educated person and had knowledge in respect of garment work. During her cross-examination, the respondent stated that she wanted to manufacture garments in the said premises.
4. The only ground urged by Mr. Riazuddin, learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent had made contradictory statements in her pleadings as well as her evidence given before the Court. Learned counsel has further contended that the initial burden was on the respondent to establish her bona fides and the mere fact that no sufficient evidence was led by the tenant in rebuttal of a ease cannot be made a ground for ejecting him from the premises. Reliance has been placed on 1987 CLC 737 1987 CLC 686, 1991 CLC 1047 and 1990 ALD 355. No doubt, the respondent in her pleadings merely stated that she intended to start business of garments and this statement was further elaborated in her affidavit-in-evidence. During her cross-examination, the respondent further stated that she wanted to manufacture garments but nothing can be spelt out from the statement made in the pleadings or the further statement made by the respondent in her affidavit-inevidence or during her cross-examination to suggest that she had contradicted herself in any manner. From the evidence it clearly appears that the respondent intended to start garments business in the demised premises. No substantial evidence appears to have been produced by the appellant in rebuttal of her case.
5. Mr. Riaz Hussain has invited my attention to a certified copy of an order passed by the learned Third Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi Central which shows that a Rent Case (403/91) which had been filed by the respondent against one Mohammed Saleem was withdrawn by her on 26-11-1991 with permission to file a fresh case but the mere fact that the respondent had withdrawn a case filed against another tenant with permission to file a fresh one in no way can defeat the respondent's case against the present appellant.
6. Under the circumstances, the learned Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that the case of the respondent in respect o1 her personal use of the premises had been fully established. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal.
7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.