1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against an order dated 23-7-1992 passed by learned VIIIth Rent Controller, Karachi-South, dismissing the eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent on the ground of personal requirement of the premises for herself as well as for her daughter Baby Sadaf.
2. ' Respondent is the tenant of the appellant in respect of Flat No, B-14, Sea Breeze, Boating Basin, Karachi on a monthly rent of Rs,2,700 by virtue of an agreement of tenancy dated 1-4-1989. It is the case of the appellant that she being doctor by profession is working at Oman (Muscat) on contract basis which contract is being renewed after every two years. It is her case that she visits Karachi at least once in a year and has no other house except the demised premises. Her daughter Baby Sadaf is studying in Class IV in Oman but she is not satisfied with her education and wants to settle at Karachi at any time for her better education. It was for this reason that she had entered into an agreement of tenancy with the respondent in April, 1989 for 11 months only and had made it clear that she wanted the demised premises for her occupation. After the expiry of 11 months' period she served a legal notice dated 15-2-1990 on the respondent asking her to vacate the demised premises but the respondent failed to vacate the same.
3. ' Respondent in her written statement admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but she pleaded no knowledge about the education of the daughter of the landlady at Oman. She stated that the appellant was settled in Muscat since 1978; that she had no intention to settle at Karachi permanently; that even if her assertion was taken to be true it could not be presumed that a girl of 12 years would stay in the house of the appellant all alone. She denied the personal requirement of the appellant on that for this reason the Agreement of Tenancy was executed for 11 months or that she wanted the premises after the expiry of the term fixed in the Tenancy Agreement. She asserted that her tenancy commenced in the year 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs,2,300. The first Agreement of Tenancy was also for 11 months which was renewed. She further alleged that, in fact, the appellant was demanding more rent and on her refusal she even stopped collecting the rent due through her resources. The respondent denied the receipt of any notice calling upon her to vacate the premises in her possession. A legal objection was also raised as regards the competency of the ejectment application having been filed by a person who was not duly authorised.
4. ' On behalf of the appellant her duly constituted attorney and brother-in-law R.B. Shaikh appeared in the witness-box while the respondent adduced the evidence of her attorney and real husband Zafar Asad Ghouri in rebuttal.
5. ' Upon consideration of the material evidence on record, learned Controller formulated the following point for determination which was answered in negative: "Whether the applicant requires the premises for personal bona fide use in good faith for her daughter Baby Sadaf who is permanently studying in Sultanate of Oman."
6. ' I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and gone through the relevant evidence on record while the respondent and her counsel did not care to appear and argue out the case.
7. ' From the evidence of appellant's attorney R.B. Shaikh, it would transpire that the respondent was inducted as tenant in the demised premises some times in 1987 at the rate of Rs,2,300 per month which was renewed from time to time. On each occasion the rate of rent was increased by Rs,200 presently the rate of rent being Rs,2,700 per month. It would further appear that the landlady has only one daughter, namely, Sadaf Saeed, who was born on 28-11-1979 at Muscat.
8. ' Appellant's attorney has further stated on oath that the said baby was getting education in Class VII at Oman but her mother was not satisfied with her education as the standard of education was poor as compared to the standard of education at Karachi. Accordingly, she wanted to get her daughter settled at Karachi at an earliest possible time for her better education and prospects. He expressly denied the suggestion to the effect that the appellant had no intention to settle at Karachi permanently or that her daughter would stay all alone in the demised flat. He asserted that the appellant by all means would reside with her daughter and if any short period was required there were relations like himself who is real brother-in-law of the appellant and permanently settled alongwith his family at Karachi. He testified that so long the husband of the landlady was alive she was permanently settled at Hyderabad but after his death she was settled at Karachi and now she visited Karachi once in a year and that she has no other house except the demised flat. He denied the suggestion that in April, 1990 with the expiry of the Agreement of Tenancy he had asked the respondent to increase the rate of rent to the extent of Rs,200 or that on her refusal to increase the rent he stopped collecting the rent. On being called upon to produce any report of her school in respect of Sadaf Saeed to show her educational progress he answered that he did not possess it.
9. Likewise he'conceded that her mother never wrote to him about her educational career. He also admitted that no application has been made for admission of Sadaf Saeed in any school in Pakistan. He further accepted that the appellant was permanently working in Oman since 1978 and that her daughter Sadaf Saeed could not live all alone in the demised flat.
10. ' Notwithstanding the circumstance that the appellant herself did not step into the witness-box to prove her bona fide requirement of the demised premises for self-occupation as well as for the occupation of her sole daughter for her better education and future prospects the fact remains that her case has been very clearly pleaded by her attorney who is no less a person than her real brother-in-law. As regards the age of Sadaf Saeed her attorney has produced photo copies of the relevant pages of her passport which would clearly show that she is a student and that she was born on 28-11-1979 at Muscat. From the copy of the passport of the appellant it transpires that she visited Pakistan in December, 1985, November, 1987, July, 1988, June, 1989 and June, 1990. There is also certificate, Exh. A-6, issued by Principal, Pakistan College, Muscat, duly attested and countersigned by Embassy of Pakistan at Muscat to show that she was enrolled in Class VII as a bona fide student.
11. ' On the other hand, there is bare denial by the respondent that the appellant as well as Ms. Sadaf did not want to reside at Karachi permanently. According to her, they are prominently settled in Oman and at no time did the appellant desire to settle at Karachi permanently. Respondent's attorney in his affidavit-in-evidence stated that it could not be believed by any reasonable person that at this tender age her mother would keep Baby Sadaf all alone in the flat. He denied the suggestion that the appellant wanted to keep Baby Sadaf in the demised premises in supervision of uncle and Aanti Mrs. R.B. Sheikh. He denied that any notice was served by the landlady for vacating the house but this statement was explained by appellant's witness R.B. Sheikh when he stated that the notice sent by him to the respondent was returned with the endorsement of refusal.
12. From the evidence referred to above I am inclined to take the view that the appellant though presently staying outside Pakistan in connection with her contract employment at Muscat bona fide and in good faith needs the premises of her own occupation and the occupation of her daughter whom she wants to settle and get educated at Karachi in the larger interests of her future academic career. There is no circumstance to doubt or dispute her desire for the welfare of her minor daughter. Her prerogative or choice to select the premises for her own occupation and for the occupation of her daughter cannot be questioned by any reasonable hypothesis. The allegation that she wanted to increase the rate of rent has no substance in it and the mere circumstance that the agreement of tenancy was renewed twice with increase in the amount of rent would not by itself disentitle her to seek the vacant possession of the premises for self- occupation and for the use of her daughter. Superior Courts have always taken a favourable view in such cases in support of the desire of the landlord unless it could be shown that the demand or desire was mala fide or prompted by ulterior motives. In my view no authority is needed for this proposition yet Syed Sami Ahmad has relied upon the judgments reported in PLD 1976 Karachi 832, 1980 SCMR 493 and 1985 CLC 2552.
13. ' Learned Controller appeared to have been influenced by the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the landlady had not authorised her attorney to file the rent application on the ground of her personal requirement. He observed that the attorney had failed to produce documentary as well as oral evidence to show that the appellant desired to settle in Pakistan. I am not inclined to subscribe to this view of the learned Controller as paragraphs 9 and 10 of the power of attorney executed by the landlady in favour of R.B. Sheikh very clearly empowered and authorised him to seek ejectment of a tenant and to take back its possession.
14. ' Para. 10 more categorically empowered him to file, institute, defend and oppose all suits litigations etc. Including engagement of an advocate, vakeel or a counsel and to sign plaints, verifications etc. On his behalf. Obviously, ejectment of a tenant cannot be obtained except in due course of law and for this purpose in my humble opinion the attorney was legally authorised to file an eviction application on behalf of landlady.
15. ' It is admitted position that the appellant's attorney had inducted the respondent as tenant in the demised premises and executed the tenancy agreement on behalf of the landlady from time to time and he was authorised to do so by virtue of the power of attorney executed in his favour. It would further appear that he had been collecting the rent from the respondent on behalf of the landlady and for all intents and purposes he is a landlord within the meaning of the term defined in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. There can be no cavil with the proposition that a landlord who is entitled and authorised to induct a tenant in the premises can also legitimately ask for his ejectment on valid grounds recognized in law. For this reason as well I find no merit in the objection raised by the respondent in her written statement with regard to the competency of the eviction application. In view of what has been stated above the dismissal order passed by the Rent Controller is set aside, eviction application is allowed and the respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the appellant within 60 days.
16. Eviction ordered.