' This appeal calls in question the order passed by the learned Second Senior. Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi South dated 21-3-1990 directing the appellant to vacate the demised shop within sixty days from passing of the order.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents who are the legal representatives of one Fazal Abbas Bhai Antaria filed application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance before the learned Rent Controller seeking the appellant's ejectment from Shop No,10 situated on Plot No,40, Chand Bibi Road, Nanakwara, Karachi in a building known as "Antaria building.
According to the case of the respondents, the appellant was their tenant at a monthly rent of Rs,29.
However, the shop was required by the respondents in good faith for personal use of respondent No,4, namely, Nasir Hussain as he wanted to start his business there.
3. The respondents' application was resisted by the appellant. According to him, the respondents had converted open space into commercial units and whereas some of the shops had been retained by them for their rpersonal use, the rest of them had been let out by them on Pugree. It was further contended that the ejectment application had been filed with ulterior motive and the requirement of the respondents was not genuine. The respondents had also filed a case (Case No,1263/53) seeking ejectment of the appellant from the building but after failing to succeed therein, the respondents resorted to other methods to obtain ejectment of the appellant from the demised shop. Before filing of the ejectment application, the applicant and the other tenants in the building had received notice from the respondents that the building was dangerous but thereafter no further action was taken in this regard.
4. The respondents filed affidavit-in-evidence of Nasir Hussain, one of the respondents for whose benefit, eviction proceedings had been initiated by the respondents and that of Masood Hussain, respondent No,2 and Noman. The appellant, on the other hand, relied upon his own evidence besides that of Ghulam Hussain.
5. The learned Controller, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence found that the respondents had fully succeeded in establishing their case and consequently, he ordered the appellant's ejectment from the demised shop as pointed out earlier.
6. The contention of Mr. Azizul Hassan, learned counsel for the appellant mainly has been that the application filed by the respondents was not bona fide as admittedly, the five residential flats in the building had been got vacated by the respondents after payment of compensation to their respective tenants and three shops in the said building were already in possession of the respondents after they had succeeded in ejecting their tenants therefrom. The learned counsel has also pointed out some of the discrepancies in the evidence of Nasir Hussain and Masood Hussain as the former had denied any knowledge in respect of Rent Case No,2239/83 which had been filed by the respondents against their tenant but the evidence given by the applicant No,2, his brother Masood Hussain showed that the former was a party to the said rent case. It has further been pointed out that the admitted position that the respondents were already in possession of a shop situated in the said open space had been denied by applicant Nasir Hussain in his cross- examination. Consequently, according to Mr. Azizul Hassan, the claim of the respondents was not bona fide.
7. In this regard, I would like to point out that the case of the respondents that the shop in question was required by them for the use of applicant Nasir Hussain for expansion of their already existing partnership business which was being carried out by them in a shop situated opposite Taj Hotel could not be demolished by the appellant through the cross-examination of the respondents' said witnesses. No doubt, it can clearly be spelled out from the evidence of the respondents' witnesses that the respondents had already covered the open space and two shops which had been vacated by their other tenants in the said building in their possession. But the mere fact that the respondents already had the said accommodation in their possession cannot be pleaded as a valid defence to the respondents' case which was that they intended to expand their business and they wanted separate shops for the three brothers, namely, Masood Hussain, Nasir Hussain and Muhammad Hussain. Admittedly, the shop opposite Taj Hotel was being used by the partnership firm of which besides applicants Masood Hussain and Nasir Hussain, Iqbal Hussain, MRs, Saifiya Bai widow of the deceased brother of the respondents and one minor, Master Shabbir Hussain, the son of the said brother were also partneRs, But the fact that the respondents were already having a partnership business also could not defeat their case filed against the appellant. The mere fact that the respondents had got the residential flats vacated by their respective tenants also by itself cannot militate against the bona fides of the respondents' claim. From the evidence, it has clearly been established that only one of the brothers wanted to continue doing business in the shop opposite Taj Hotel but the other brothers intended to start their separate business. This evidence could not be rebutted by any of the appellant's witnesses. Consequently, I am inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Controller on the point that the case of the respondents had been fully established.
8. In the result, I find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. By consent, six months' time is granted to the appellant to vacate the demised premises as requested by Mr. Azizul Hassan, his counsel. In case, the appellant fails to vacate the premises he shall be liable to be ejected therefrom without further notice to him.