1. ' This Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arises out of judgment dated 2nd January, 1989 passed by the IInd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No, 1306 of 1983 under section 15 thereof directing the appellant tenant Zaheer Ahmed to vacate the ground floor of 5/B (F.36) Commercial Area, Mohammad 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 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. Fayaz Ahmed is stated to be qualified Automobiles and Diesel Engineer from U.S.A. 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 condition 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 originally the rent of the demised premises consisting of three rooms was Rs,350 per month, which was raised to Rs,575 at the time when the property was purchased by the respondent. Thereafter the respondent started harassing him and pursuaded him to increase the rent from Rs,575 per month to Rs,800 per month which the appellant did with effect from 1st September, 1977. Again in the year 1979, the respondent started harassing him. And demanded further increase in rent and required him to execute tenancy agreement first for a period of.11 months and thereafter for a period of 15 yeaRs, The appellant did not agree to this proposal but agreed to pay Rs,20,000 as security deposit to the respondent in order to avoid further harassm ent by her. Despite this, the respondent once again started harassing him on one pretext or the otheRs, Her husband made a complaint against the appellant before the Martial Law Authorities but it was rejected. He also lodged a complaint with Police Station Bahadurabad, consequently, the appellant was constrained to file a Suit No, 421 of 1982 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the appellant by force. It was specifically alleged by the appellant that the respondent's husband is already in possession of two shops in the building wherein he is carrying on Motor Works Business besides business of Fay Motors at Sultan Ahmed Shah Road and the said business of Petrol Pump at Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi.
4. ' The respondent landlady produced her attorney and husband Fayyaz Ahmed Chaudhry and the appellant examined himself in support of his contentions.
5. ' The respondent's husband Fayyaz Ahmed Chaudhry in his examination-in-chief, while reiterating the averments made in the ejectment application further stated that he has managed for the finances for his proposed business of the new and used cars and that M/s. Shahnawaz Limited are prepared to provide dealership of cars to him. There was also a statement simpliciter that he required the premises for his children who were grown up. He also maintained that the respondent had filed another ejectment application against the other tenant of the ground floor.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Talmiz S. Burney learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Siddique Mirza learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the entire record with me. In support of their contentions learned counsel placed reliance on Hajra Bai v. Aisha Bai, 1982 CLC 1444; Fasahat All v.
7. Noor Jehan Begum, 1991 CLC 1902; Zaheeruddin v. S. Riaz Ahmed, 1991 CLC 1512; Haji Zainulabedin v.
8. 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. Noorunisa v. Qamarul Haider, 1988 CLC 1833; Muhammad Asadullah v. Sughra Begum, 1988 CLC 2078; Sher Bahadur v.
9. Sher Zaman, 1988 CLC 2084; 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. Shoukat Ali, 1989 M LD 2496; Ch. All Ahmed v. Government of Punjab, 1989 MLD 2499; Matloob Hussain v. Syed Abdul Qayyum,.
10. 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.
11. ' The rationale which prevailed upon the learned Controller while granting the ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement in good faith was that (a) the respondents' husband is only a licensee/dealer of Petrol Pump on behalf of Pakistan Burma-Shell and not the owner thereof nor of the plot where the petrol pump is installed, (b) the business of petrol pump has not been so progressive and is not beneficial to meet the requirements of his family, (c) her husband is a qualified Automobile and Diesel Engineer to run a car show room of new and old cars at the demised premises, (d) her husband has managed the finance and is in a position to start the new business, (e) the demised premises is situated in a commercial area on ground floor on main road and suitable for the proposed business, (f) the bona fides 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.
12. 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" and (b) there is nothing on record to indicate if at any stage the applicant had demanded higher Pugree from him.
13. ' It is pertinent to note that the respondent in para. (4) of the ejectment application has specifically stated that the sole object of her purchasing the property was that it would be utilised for the benefit and advantage of her family and her husband Ch. Fayyaz Ahmed which was controverted by the appellant. Again in para. (2) of affidavit-in-evidence her said husband states that the respondent had purchased the premises for personal requirement. Contrary to this assertion, the ejectment application was filed by her after six years although earlier she had filed a complaint before the Martial Law Authorities but admittedly it was not for ejectment of the appellant. The credibility of respondent becomes further doubtful as soon after the transfer of the property w,e,f, 21-9-1977 the respondent started. Receiving Rs,800 per month as rent from the appellant instead of Rs,575 per month and that she further received on 18-11-1979 Pay Order for Rs,20,000 from the appellant as was certified vide certificate issued by M/s. United Bank Ltd.
14. ' What, however, is most perturbing to note is that the learned Controller completely lost sight of the admissions made by the respondents' husband and attorney in his deposition. 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 is 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.S.A.' 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 obtain ejectment order in her favour.
15. ' 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 erroneus 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.
16. The landlady having failed to place any material as to her requirement for her children, it was palpably erroneous on the part of the leanred Controller to have inferred that she required the premises in good faith.
17. ' As to the reasoning of the learned Controller appearing at (d) above that the bona fides 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.
18. ' The respondent thus has failed to establish her personal requirement 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.