1. ' This Rent App,...1 under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arisest of judgment dated 2nd January, 1989 passed by the IInd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No,1307 of 1983 under section 15 thereof directing the appellant tenant Ismail to vacate a shop on the ground floor of 5/B (F.36) Commercial Area, Muhammad All Housing Society, Karachi.
2. ' The said rent case was filed by the respondent landlady on personal bona fide requirement. She was first a tenant of first floor in the said building. It is averred by her that her tenancy commenced from 1964 till 1977 when she purchased the building with the sole object of utilising it for the benefit of her husband and her family. The husband of the respondent Ch. Fayyaz Ahmed is stated to be qualified Automobiles and Diesel Engineer from U.SA. and has got vast experience in motor cars and other automobiles. It is averred that in spite of best efforts, the husband of the respondent could not exploit his capability as he was not able to have suitable building/premises for the business concern. He was running a Petrol Pump but due to uncertain conditions as to rise in prices, etc. the said business has not been progressive and successful. Besides, it is averred that he was only a licensee/dealer of Pakistan Burma Shell which is terminable on a month's notice. The respondent and her husband want to establish a show room of new and used car and an office with all attachment at the premises now occupied by the appellant tenant.
3. ' The appellant vehemently contested the ejectment application and refuted the averments made therein. It was submitted by him that after the purchase of the property, the respondent started harassing him and required him to increase the rent which was Rs,250 per month. She also demanded security deposit of Rs,20,000 from him. Thereafter she filed a Rent Case No,2381 of 1978 against the appellant on the ground of subletting and default which was dismissed by the Xth Rent Controller, Karachi on 12-4-1983. During the pendency of the said Rent Case, the present rent case was filed by her as an afterthought. It was submitted that the respondent's husband is running a Petrol Pump with Service Station where he is also carrying out repairing, painting and denting of vehicles. His licence/dealership was for a period of 30 years renewable on the expiry thereof. The ejectment application was mala fide and the premises in question is also not suitable for the proposed business.
4. ' The respondent landlady produced her attorney and husband Fayyaz Ahmed and the appellant examined himself, one Abdul Qadir, his cousin and Abdul Rashid a visitor in support of his contentions.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Raja Haq Nawaz, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Siddiq Mirza learned counsel for respondent and have gone through the entire record with me. In support of their contentions learned counsel have placed reliance on Hajra Bai v. Aisha Bai 1982 CLC 1444; Fasahat Ali v. Noor Jehan Begum 1991 CLC 1902; Zaheeruddin v. S. Riaz Ahmed 1991 CLC 1512; Haji Zainul Abedin v. Mst. Sharifan Begum 1991 CLC 1515; Muhammad Arif v. Chaudhry Gulzar Ahmed 1991 CLC 1850; Muhammad Saleem Anwar v. M/s. Parly International 1991 CLC 1854; Mst. Noorunnisa v.
6. Qamarul Haider 1988 CLC 1833; Muhammad Asadullah v. Sughra Begum 1988 cLC 2078; M/s. Eastern Express Co. Ltd. v. Tariq Hameed PLD 1986 Kar. 84; Syed Abdul Basit v. Mrs. Mubarak 1991 CLC 1226; M/s. Al-Ahram Building Ltd. v. Ardeshir 1991 CLC 1229; Dr. Najma Sultana v. Mst. Shaista Rafique 1988 M LD 1166; Asghar Hussain v. Shaukat Ali 1989 M LD 2496; Ch. Ali Ahmed v. Government of Punjab 1989 MLD 2499; Matloob Hussain v. Syed Abdul Qayyum 1988 MLD 2150; Fatima Bai v. Shaikh Muhammad Zaki 1990 CLC 1064; Shahnaz Begum v. Akhlaq Ahmed 1990 CLC 904 and Mubashar Hussain Siddiqui v. Abdul Rehman 1989 ALD 309.
7. ' The rationale which prevailed upon the learned Controller while granting the ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement in good faith were that: (a) Her requirement for her husband and children has not been rebutted nor the fact that the respondents' children are grown up, (b) the respondents' husband is only a licensee/dealer of Petrol Pump oia behalf of Pakistan Burma Shell and not the owner thereof nor of the plot where the petrol pump is installed,
(c) the business of petrol pump has not been progressive and is not beneficial to meet the requirements of his family, but there is nothing on record in rebuttal thereof, (d) her husband is a qualified Automobile and Diesel Engineer to run a car show room of new and old cars at the demised premises, (e) her husband has managed the finance and is in a position to start the new business, (f) the demised premises is situated in a commercial area on ground floor on main road and suitable for the proposed business, (g) the bona fide of the respondent can be ascertained from the question put to appellant during his cross that if respondent undertakes not to relet or sell the premises, whether he was ready to vacate it to which his reply was in negative. However, the reasoning for rejection of the pleas raised by the appellant was that: (a) The appellant failed to produce any independent ocular or documentary evidence to show that the respondent's husband had been running another petrol pump at Hyder All Road or the business under the name of "Faiz Motors", (b) no documentary or oral evidence was produced by the appellant to show if the respondent had purchased Faiz Motors Workshop or doing the business of denting and painting at the petrol pump.
8. ' It is pertinent to note that the respondent in para. (4) of the ejectment application as well as in para (2) of the affidavit-in-evidence has specifically stated that the sole object of her purchasing the property was to utilise it for the benefit and advantage of her family. Contrary to this assertion, she filed the first Rent Case No,2381 of 1978 against the appellant on the ground of subletting and default and not on personal requirement in good faith. The ejectment application in question was filed by her after six years. It was also admitted by respondents' husband that after purchasing the property, the respondent had constructed two rooms on the roof of the building.
9. ' What, however, is most perturbing to note is that the learned Controller completely lost sight of the admissions made by the respondent's husband and attorney and also misread his evidence. In the first place he admitted that she had in her possession two shops on ground floor at the time of the purchase of the property which still are in her possession thus supporting the version of the appellant which has also gone unchallenged. He has further admitted in cross-examination of his carrying on another business under the name and style of Faiz Motors & Workshop' at another place since 1968. Lastly, he has also admitted that he has been dealing with the sale and purchase of cars and their repairs at the said petrol pump, for which job he was aspiring 'as qualified and experienced automobile engineer from U.SA.' Non disclosure of the said two shops in landlady's own possession in the same building and her concealment of other material facts has created great doubts as to her credibility and good faith disentitling her to ejectment order in her favour.
10. ' It may further be observed here that the finding of the learned Controller that respondent's requirement of the premises for her children stands established is erroneous as her said requirement was in general and vague terms and was met by general denial by the appellant tenant. It is now settled law that a landlord has to give necessary particulars of his requirement of premises so as to establish his bona fides and to enable the tenant to put up his defence otherwise the ground would fail. Nowhere the respondent landlady has disclosed as to the number of her children, their names, ages and sex, leave aside other particulars about them. The landlady having failed to place any material as to her requirements for her children, it was palpably erroneous on the part of the learned Controller to have inferred that she required the premises in good faith.
11. ' As to the reasoning of the learned Controller appearing at (d) above that the bona fide of the landlady stands established as the appellant/tenant refused to accept her undertaking not to re- let or sell the property, is on the face of it, fallacious and untenable.
12. ' The respondent thus has failed to establish her personal requirements in good faith for herself and for her husband and children. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the impugned order of the learned Controller is set aside.