' The only question that requires consideration in the present appeal is whether the premises in question were required in good faith by the respondent for the bona fide use of his son.
2. According to the case of the respondent, the shop in possession of the appellant was required for the use of his son Syed Musarat Ali who was already dealing in supply and fittings of sanitary works. The shop was required by the respondent as his said son wanted to start a business of sale and supply of sanitary items.
3. The application filed by the respondent before the learned Controller was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was in the habit of getting the shop vacated from the tenants and renting out the same after receiving higher rent and heavy PUGRI from other tenants.
Before the learned Controller the respondent gave evidence himself and so did his son, Syed Mussarat Ali. It was once again reiterated by them that the respondent's son wanted to start the said business in the demised shop. During the cross-examination of the respondent it transpired that he was in possession of four other shops which had been let out on rent and one of the shops out of the said shops had been rented out about 3 or 4 years prior to the date when the respondent was giving evidence before the learned Controller. However, it could not be established that when the eviction application had been filed by the respondent before the learned Controller that the shop had been let out by the respondent as suggested to him in the cross-examination by the appellant's Advocate. It is pertinent to point out that the respondent's son, Syed Musarat Ali had also filed photo copies of certain orders received by M/s. Musarat Association from the KDA and other Government departments for execution of certain works but apart from the photo copies which were produced in evidence as Exhs. A/1 to A/3, the said documents were not properly proved as their author had not been examined as a witness in the Court.
4. Mr. Amir Hani has vehemently argued that the burden to establish good faith and bona fides was on the respondent and the respondent has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to discharge such burden. Reliance has been placed on the case of Mukhtar Ahmed v. Muhammad Saleem Bakhshi 1981 CLC 1047, Mahmooda Khatoon v. Adi Shroof PLD 1989 Kar. 181 and Mst. Farukh Nisa v. Safdar Ahmed PLD 1985 Kar.
639. In all these cases the bare statement of the landlord that the demised premises were required for personal use was held to be not sufficient.
5. So far as the contention of Mr. Amir Hani is concerned, it is true that the documents (Exhs. A/1 to A/3) were not properly proved by the respondent by evidence of their author, nevertheless the basic question is whether the oral evidence adduced by the respondent or his son Syed Musarat Ali was sufficient to establish the bona fides of their claim. The cause of action accured to the respondent because according to him, his said son had no place to start his business of sale and supply of sanitary items and that he wanted to start the said business in the shop in occupation of the appellant. It is pertinent to point out that neither it was the case of the appellant nor it could be proved during the cross-examination of the respondent or his son that the respondent or his son was in possession or occupation of another shop suitable for the said business nor they had let out any such shop when the cause of action had accrued to the respondent in this case. The business that the respondent's son wanted to start was admittedly a news business because previously he was only dealing in supply and fittings of sanitary works. In my opinion, the documents referred to by Mr. Amir Hani (Exhs. A/1 to A/3) were not even required to be produced in evidence to establish bona fides of the respondent or his son. The appellant was unable to produce any material evidence in rebuttal of the respondent's case. Consequently, the learned Controller had no other option but to order ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises. No doubt, the burden to establish good faith or bona fides is upon the landlord but the same is to be inferred from the circumstances of a particular case. The cases cited by Mr. Amir Hani are distinguisable. In the present case, the evidence of the respondent and his son clearly showed that they had a cause of action to institute ejectment proceedings against the appellant. Nothing appears to have come out from the cross-examination of the respondent or his son to shake their evidence or cast doubts upon their bona fides. The order passed by the learned Controller does not appear to be open to exception.
6. In the result, I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.