' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17-5-1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No, 70 of 1992, filed by the respondents against the order of dismissal dated 23-12-1991 of the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East), in Rent Case No, 732 of 1989, allowing the same by setting aside the above Rent Controller's order and by granting the above ejectment case on the ground of personal requirement of respondent No, 1.
2. The brief facts are that the property bearing No, 861/-C, situated in Commercial Area, P.E.C.H.
Society, Karachi, belonged to the wife of respondent No,
1. In the above property, shop No, 4 was let out to the petitioner by respondent No, l's wife in or about 1974. It appears that respondent No, l's wife and respondents Nos. 2 to 4's mother, Mst. Amtul Fateh, expired in 1988. The respondents filed above rent case in August, 1989, on the ground that respondent No, 1, having retired from service, wanted to install a Printing Press in the suit shop. The above rent case was resisted by the petitioner, inasmuch as a written statement was filed in which inter alia it was pleaded that respondent No, 1, acting as the attorney of the deceased owner, was in the habit of increasing rent from time to time, as originally rent was Rs,90, which was increased to Rs,100, then to Rs,150, then to Rs,200 and finally to Rs,240 per month. It was also pleaded that the ground of personal requirement had been concocted only to suit his evil design, as he wanted to let out the suit shop on heavy Pugree. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed two issues, one relating to personal requirement and the other as to the relief. After recording evidence and hearing the parties by his aforesaid order dated 23-12-1991, he dismissed the above rent case inter alia by holding that the respondents had failed to prove that respondent No, 1 had enough funds and experience to run a Printing Press. It was further held that respondent No, 1 had retired from service in 1981, whereas his wife died on 25-9-1988, but he did not install a Printing Press in any of the two shops which were let out by his wife during her lifetime.
3. Against the above order of the learned Rent Controller, the respondents filed aforesaid R.F.A., which was allowed for the following reasons:- "It was emphasized in the above cases that the selection of the premises is a matter of choice for the landlord and the mere fact that some shops had been let out earlier by the landlord is not sufficient to defeat his plea for personal requirement. I would like to point out that in case the tenant wants to rely upon such evidence, it will be necessary to seek explanation of the landlord on the point first. On the other hand, the evidence of the appellant was not shaken in the cross- examination which was sufficient for establishing his plea of personal requirement. The appellant, according to him, was a retired person and in respect of this there appears to be no controversy between the parties. The claim of the appellant that he wanted to start a printing press did not require further proof on the point, viz., that the appellant had obtained a licence for such business or that he had sufficient funds to start his business. As was held in the case of Mst. Saira Bai v. Syed Anisur Rehman (1989 SCM R 1366), the landlord was not required to state the nature of his business which he intended to carry on as the same was neither essential nor formed part of the cause of action. The other cases cited by Mr. Naraindas Motiani on the point are Mst. Toheed Khanam v.
Muhammad Shamshad (1980 SCM R 593) and two unreported cases of the Supreme Court, namely, Civil Appeal No,127-K of 1989 (Haji Ahmed Nawaz v. Abdul Hameed) decided on 16-12-1990 and C.A.
No, 311-K of 1990 (Mst. Shahjehan v. Nazim Ali Khan), decided on 6-3-1991, which further support his contention."
' The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. In support of the above petition, Mr. Ali Akbar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the learned Judge in Chamber was not justified in reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller, as admittedly the respondents had suppressed the factum that the deceased owner, during her life-time, had let out the two suit shops after respondent No,1 had retired from service. His further submission was that respondent No,1 was not physically fit to run any business.
5. We are not impressed by the above submissions. Admittedly, the respondents became the owners of the above property by succession on the expiry of Mst. Amtul Fateh on 25-9-1988.
According to Mr. All Akbar, the above two shops were let out in 1984 and 1986. In our view, the above factum of letting out the shops is not relevant to the point in issue. Though respondent No, l's wife could apply for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal requirement of her husband, but this fact would not, in any way, prejudice respondent No, l's right to apply for ejectment on the ground of his personal requirement after having become one of the co-owners of the above suit shops. Even otherwise, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that in 1984 and 1986, respondent No, 1 had the intention to instal a printing press, nor any material has been brought on record to show that the above two shops were suitable for respondent No, l's requirement. The fact that respondent No,1 had retired from service on medical ground, would not itself be sufficient to negate his right to start his own business. The High Court has properly appraised the evidence and has correctly drawn inferences therefrom. The above petition has no merits and, therefore, leave is refused.
6. However, at the request of Mr. All Akbar and with the consent of Mr. N.C. Motiani, learned A.O.R. For the respondents, the petitioner is allowed eight months time from today on the condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay rent regularly, and pay electric and other charges payable by him, failing which, it will be open to the respondents to file an execution application before the expiry of the above period. Furthermore, in case the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop on the expiry of above period of eight months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without any further notice to the petitioner.