This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals arising out of identical judgments dated 21-5-1992 passed by learned Controller, Karachi West directing ejectment of the appellants from shop premises situated on Plot No.8/5 Willayatabad, Manghoopir Road, Karachi in Rent Cases Nos. 127 of 1990 and 128 of 1990 respectively on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent.
2. Appellant in First Rent Appeal No. 355 of 1992 is the tenant in the demised shop since Ist August, 1978 by way of oral agreement of tenancy whereas appellant in appeal No.356 of 1992 is the tenant of the respondent w.e.f. 1st. August, 1978 through a written agreement dated 1-8-1978. Rent in respect of each of the shops is admittedly Rs.400 per month. Eviction was sought on the grounds that the appellants had committed default in payment of rent since February, 1990 and December, 1989 respectively. Case of the respondent before the Controller also was that both the shops were required for use and occupation of his sons Azizuddin and Zahiruddin who are jobless and whose marriage is held up 'for want of job owing to lack of business accommodation. In each of the cases, appellants denied the default and asserted payment of rent uptodate with the averments that the respondent had not issued rent receipts to them for the disputed period. Likewise personal requirement of the respondent was disputed for the reason that respondent already had a vacant shop and open space lying vacant behind the shop available with him on which both his sons were already running a marble business.
3. In support of his case, respondent examined himself, his sons Zahiruddin and Azizuddin and nephew Sadruddin while each of the appellants appeared as their own witnesses: In both the cases, learned Controller settled common issues relating to default in payment of rent and the personal requirement of the premises in good faith for the use of sons of the respondent.
4. On assessm ent of the evidence on record and hearing parties' counsel, learned Controller by identical judgments directed eviction of the appellants on the ground of personal requirement while the ground of default did not find favour with her. It is in these circumstances that the present appeals were filed.
5. During the pendency of appeals, appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. l99 of 1995 and 200 of 1995 under section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance seeking to produce affidavits of two other tenants o: the respondent, namely, Rustam Khan and Ataur Rehman in support of their plea that personal requirement of the respondent if any would stand satisfied by availability of two shops vacated by both these tenants. As n objections were filed to these applications, prayer for additional evidence was allowed by this Court vide order dated 2-10-1995.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the respondent already has a vacant shop in his possession and two more shops vacated by his tenants Rustam Khan and Ataur Rehman which should suffice his needs for establishment of a marble factory as desired in the evidence of the respondent, his sons Zahiruddin, Azizuddin and nephew Sadruddin, Respondent's witness Sadruddin is a technician dealing with marble industry and has testified that he has been assisting respondent's son Azizuddin in the business of marble industry which is being run on a small scale on the plot lying vacant behind the vacant shop. There is no serious and strong rebuttal of the evidence on record to show that the requirement of the respondent is unreasonable or mala fide. No doubt, respondent's son Azizuddin admitted during his cross-examination that Wt least an area of 20 x 24 feet will be required for refrigeration and air-conditioning business. This admission by itself in isolation from the remaining evidence furnished by the respondent himself as well as his two sons Zahiruddin, Azizuddin and Sadruddin cannot be accepted as a final word nor does it have the effect of negating the bona fide desire and requirement of the respondent who intends to established a marble factory after demolition of the existing shops and reconstruction. On preponderance of evidence on record, I am convinced that the requirement of the respondent to settle both of his sons with a view to establish a marble factory is neither tainted with ulterior motives nor in order to earn Pugri as understood by the appellant.
7. It was further submitted that both the sons of the appellant are settled and doing one or .The other business which would wipe out bona fides of the respondent in asking for ejectment of the appellants on the ground of personal requirement. I am afraid, I cannot subscribe to this view of the learned counsel for the appellants as no circumstance has been shown to defeat the genuineness of the desire or bona fides on the part of the respondent who is entitled to have better use of the property to the best of his choice. The right to acquire and 8 possess one's property is guaranteed even under the Constitution which cannot be lightly curtailed or snatched by any subordinate law. In the circumstances, I see no strong reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Controller which is neither opposed to law nor arbitrary.
8. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals must fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs but in view of old tenancy each of the appellants is allowed 120 days to vacate the shop premises subject, however, to the payment of monthly rent failing which they shall be liable to ejectment even before the expiry of the above period.