' This appeal is directed against the ejectment order dated 19-10-1993 passed by the learned Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East) in Rent Case No,521/91 directing to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within 45 days from the date of the order.
2. Briefly stated the facts which lead to this appeal are that the respondent named above filed ejectment proceedings under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 stating therein that she is the landlady of a bungalow situated over Plot No,15, Rohail Khand Society, Haider Ali Road, Karachi consisting of four portions; and the opponent/appellant is tenant of portion No,3 at First Floor of the said bungalow on monthly rent of Rs,1,200 p.m. She also stated that she has got 10 sons out of which 3 are married and have children. She asserted that there is a slump in the business at Quetta and her husband and sons have decided to shift to Karachi and to start their business and permanently settle at Karachi; and that she alongwith her family members was residing in a rented house at Quetta, which they have to vacate as a result of compromise in Rent Case No,104/90; and that now she has no other residential house any where in Pakistan except the demised premises at Karachi as such she has no other alternative but to shift and settle permanently alongwith her family at Karachi, hence she filed four Rent Cases including the present one, for ejectment of the tenants from all the four portions of the bungalow, for their personal bona fide need.
3. The opponent/appellant filed his written statement in denial of the applicant's case. He asserted that the alleged need of the applicant is not bona fide as none of her sons want to shift to Karachi.
The compromise in Rent Case No,104/90 was collusive. He also pleaded that in 1989 and 1990 the husband of the applicant had approached him as well as other tenants of the portions of the same bungalow, for sale of the tenements at Rs,5,00,000 each. He also pleaded that many people approached the opponent and informed that the portion in question as well as other portions of the bungalow are being purchased by them and that they require the vacant possession of the same. He also denied the personal bona fide need of the applicant.
4. In support of her case, the applicant filed her own affidavit-in-evidence as well as of her witnesses Javaid Jamil, Sarkhalid Javaid, and Abdul Wahab Siddiqui, while the opponent filed his own affidavit-in-evidence. Applicant's witnesses Sarkhalid and Abdul Wahab did not appear for their cross-examination as such 'their affidavits were discarded.
5. That after the parties closed their sides, the learned Rent Controller after hearing the advocates of both the sides, passed the impugned order determining following points:-
(1) Whether premises in question is required by the applicant for her personal use in good faith?
(2) What should the order be? Hence this appeal.
6. I have heard Mr. Rana M. Aslam, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi, Advocate for the respondent, and with their assistance have gone through the entire record of the case.
7. The appellant's learned advocate contended that the premises in question, in fact is not needed by the applicant for her need but she want to dispose of the same with vacant possession. The plea of shifting to Karachi where the conditions are worst than the Quetta on the face of it appears to be false and concocted one, which is advanced with the sole object to get the vacant possession of the portion in question, so that it is delivered to the purchaser. The need of the applicant is mala fide as such the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller deserves to be set aside; and that the applicant has miserably failed to prove her personal bona fide need for the demised premises. Hence the appeal may be allowed and the Rent Case filed against the appellant may be dismissed.
8. Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi, Advocate for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Rent Controller and he contended that since the applicant and her son Javed Jamil have proved the assertions made by the applicant in the Rent Case and their evidence has not been shattered, the impugned judgment does not call for interference. He contended that the applicant really needs the portion in possession of the opponent/appellant for her needs. He also contended that it is the prerogative of a person to choose the place of residence and the business and no other person have any right to exercise such choice or to stop him from doing so. Similarly he argued that it is the choice of the applicant and her family members to live, do business and permanently settle at Karachi, and the opponent cannot create hurdles in their way. Since the applicant has no other house throughout Pakistan except the bungalow in question at Karachi as such her family has decided to shift to Karachi. In support of his contention he referred (1) Ijaz Hussain and others v. Mst.
Hussan Ara, 1988 SCMR 1939, (2) Tariq Aziz and others v. Farooq Hassan and 4 others 1993 CLC 1793,
(3) Mirza Yawar Baig v. Usman Ghani Chippa, 1989 CLC 247.
9. I have applied my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the contentions of the learned advocates for both the parties; and I have reached to the conclusion that if the landlady has decided to stay in her own property rather than in rented premises, no legal obstacle could come in her way; and the choosing premises for her personal need was the prerogative of the landlady as she was judge of suitability of premises for her requirement and the tenant could not have option to choose as to which place and which premises would be suitable for the landlady. Reference may be made to following decisions:--
(1) Mst. Naseer Fatima v. Suraiya Abid Ali, PLD 1994 Karachi 468.
(2) Attiya Badar v. Munshi Khan, 1994 CLC 1875.
(3) Abdul Majid v. Kamaluddin, 1994 MLD 958.
(4) S.M. Zaffar Pervaiz v. S. Nasiruddin, 1995 CLC 1719.
10. Against the false plea of a landlord for vacation of the premises on the ground of personal bona fide need, the right of a tenant is safeguarded under section 15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which reads as under:-- "S. 15-A.--Where the landlord, who has obtained the possession of a building under section 14 or premises under clause (vii) of section 15, relates the building or premises to any person other than the previous tenant or puts it to a use other than personal use within one year of such possession
(i) he shall be punishable with fine which shall not exceed one year's rent of the building or the premises as the case may be, payable immediately before the possession was so obtained.
(ii) The tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for order directing that he shall be restored to possession of the building or the premises, as the case may be, and the Controller shall make an order accordingly."
11. In view of the above legal position and relying on Sultan Shah v. Muhammad Hussain, 1995 MLD 847, the impugned judgment does not call for interference, as such it is maintained and in result the appeal merits no consideration hence it is dismissed with no order as to costs. The tenant shall put the landlady in vacant possession of the premises in question within 30 days, subject to deposit of monthly rent, failing wherein the Rent Controller shall issue direct writ of possession without prior notice to the opponent.