1. ' This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 26-10-1991, passed by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi Central in Rent Case No,632 of 1989 filed by the respondent against the appellant in respect of shop No,1 situated on Plot No,6/163-A, Liaquatabad, Karachi on the ground of requirement of the above shop for bona fide use and occupation for the daughter of the respondent who had qualified as Homeopathic Doctor. The case was resisted mainly on the ground that the respondent wanted to re construct the building and for such purpose the document was executed between the parties on 18-1-1989, whereby each tenant was required to contribute by 8-5-1989, a sum of Rs,25,000 towards the cost of construction of the building.
2. Subsequently the respondent increased the demand in so far as the appellant is concerned to Rs,75,000 and for the other two tenants to Rs,50,000 each. Since the aforesaid amount was not paid the ground of personal requirement was allegedly concocted by the respondent.
3. ' The learned Rent Controller on appraisal of the evidence found the personal requirement to be bona fide and allowed the eviction application.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Jamil, for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Aftab Alam for the respondent.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent has failed to establish honesty of his intention to utilise the shop bona fide for the personal need of his daughter. It was contended by him that had the need been bona fide the respondent would not have agreed to accept the amount specified in the document dated 18-1-1989 towards cost of re-construction of the building.
6. According to him the above document militiates the bona fides of the respondent. He further submitted that subsequently the respondent demanded enhanced amount as stated above and therefore it cannot be said that the shop is required bona fide.
7. It is not disputed that the daughter of the respondent has passed her examination in the year 1989 and qualified as Doctor on 16-9-1989 when the certificate was issued to her. It is also admitted fact that the respondent or his daughter are not in possession of any other shop. The above circumstances would be sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the shop is required for the use of the daughter of the respondent to begin her career. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant however is that the execution of the agreement on 18-1-1989 between the respondent and the tenants and the subsequent increased demand for the purpose of raising construction, per se reflect adversely on the bona fides of the requirement. According to him if the respondent needed the shop in good faith for his daughter, he would not have the above document undertaking to reconstruct the shops for the tenants, nor he would have increased the demand in regard to cost of construction. In so far as subsequent increased demand is concerned, it has been denied by the respondent. The execution of a slip in this regard which does not bear the signature of the respondent, also has been denied by him. The evidence produced by the appellant to prove the said slip, discloses that the said slip was handed over by the respondent to the witness Nasiruddin, whereas in the written statement it was stated that the said slip was delivered to the appellant, although in his evidence he improved the said statement by adding that ' it was delivered to the respondent through the said witness. The appellant's evidence in this regard does not inspire any confidence. This piece of evidence is, therefore, to be discarded.
8. ' The facts on the record reveal that there are four shops on the plot in question which are rented out to three tenants and two residential rooms which are occupied by the respondent. The respondent had proposed to reconstruct the shops for which the tenants had agreed to contribute Rs,25,000 towards the cost of construction and also deliver the vacant possession of the shop on the second day of Eid-uz-Zoha. But the possession was not delivered to the respondent. Because of the presence of the tenants on the plot, the plan for reconstruction could not be approved in absence of NOC from them, which was demanded by the Karachi Building Control Authority under letter dated 12-4-1989.
9. ' The respondent has admitted that he had no funds to reconstruct the building. Subject to funds being made available to him, he was willing to reconstruct the building so that he could provide a shop to his daughter and simultaneously accommodate all the tenants. After such scheme having failed to materialize, he was left with no option but to file the eviction application. One cannot read any mala fide intention on the part of the respondent in his having agreed in the first instance to reconstruct the shop. On the contrary it shows good faith on his part not to disturb the tenants, if possible.
10. ' The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Fasahat Ali v. Noor Jehan Begum, 1991 CLC 1902, Mukhtar Ahmed v. Muhammad Saleem Bukhshee, 1991 CLC 1047 and M/s. John Traders v.
11. Ahmed Ali, 1986 CLC 561. So far as above cases are concerned they have been decided on the facts distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the first case the categorical statement of the tenant in the affidavit in evidence to the effect that in addition to the property in possession of the landlord, he was also in personal physical possession of another property owned by him, was found not only to have gone unrebutted but even impliedly admitted by the landlord and correspondingly the issue was rightly decided against the tenant for want of proof of bona fides. In the present case the respondent does not own any property other than the one in which the demised shop is situated and there is no dispute in respect of the fact that the respondent and his daughter are not in physical occupation of any shop, at all. In the second case it has been observed that before the tenant be deprived of his tenancy rights in respect of a commercial premises, the landlord is required to establish his good faith and reasonable need for requiring the premises for his use by congent evidence. In the instant case the landlord has established that his daughter has qualified as a doctor and needs the premises in dispute to open her clinic and that they are not in possession of any other shop which could be utilized for the said purpose. The bona fides of the need also has been thus established. In the third case the landlord filed rent case on the ground that he had purchased the property in dispute to store his furniture but such plea was found falsified by the fact that in the earlier two notices sent to the tenant immediately after purchase, no such stand was taken by the landlord and the only demand made therein required the tenant to execute fresh rent agreement. It was also noted that the landlord had changed his above version in his affidavit in evidence, wherein it was inconsistently pleaded that he required his own shop, as he had to pay heavy rent for the premises in his possession. It was under the above circumstances that the good faith was found lacking.
12. ' On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Amir Hyder v.
13. Muhammad Iqbal, 1993 CLC 481 and Chung Ying Hsiung v. Mst. Seema Saeed, PLD 1993 Karachi 60, which supports the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondent within four months, from today, subject to payment of rent.