' This First Rent Appeal arises out of an order, dated 12-1-1993 passed by learned Controller, Karachi-South whereby he rejected the prayer of the appellant Bank for ejectment of the respondents on the ground of personal requirement bona fide.
2 Learned Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties settled following three issues for determination:
(1) Whether the Bank is situated at Clifton Cantonment as such this Court has no jurisdiction?
(2) Whether the appellant requires the premises for his personal bona fide use in good faith?
(3) What should the order be?
3. On assessm ent of evidence, learned Controller came to the conclusion that the Bank House in dispute is situated within the Clifton Cantonment jurisdiction as such only the Controller of Cantonment Board has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter. On issue relating to personal requirement, he expressed the view that the requirement of the appellant was mala fide and therefore, dismissed the prayer for ejectment of the respondents.
4. Facts leading to this dispute briefly stated are that bungalow No,92 situated at Clifton known as Bank House was in use and occupation of late Mr. Ahmed Habib who was the Chairman/Chief Executive of the appellant before its nationalisation w,e,f, 1-1-1974 but he continued to use and occupy the said house even after his retirement. On the request of the said Mr. Ahmed Habib former President of the Bank, Mr. Mustafa Ismail allowed him to continue the use and occupation of the rented premises on payment of nominal rent of Rs,2,500 per month as a special case. After the death of Mr. Ahmed Habib tenancy rights devolved upon his legal heirs. According to the appellant ejectment application was filed against Mohsin Ahmed Habib son of late Mr., Ahmed Habib as he alone was occupying the rented premises after the same remained vacant for quite some time.
Furthermore, the appellant was not aware of the names and addresses of other heirs of the deceased. In reply to the letters sent to respondent Mohsin Ahmed Habib to vacate the rented premises and to hand over the same to the appellant as the latter needed the same for personal bona fide requirement the former for himself and on behalf of other legal issues proposed in 1987- 1988 to buy by the rented premises. Appellant then agreed to sell the rented premises to him for the reasons that the appellant Bank would buy another suitable property for its personal requirement from the sale proceeds of the rented premises. However, the proposal of the heirs of late Ahmed Habib to buy the rented premises failed due to unreasonable attitude of the respondents, the appellant alleged.
5. In the written statement filed by respondent Mohsin Ahmed Habib through his attorney S.M.
Askari it was pleaded that the Controller had no jurisdiction in this case for the reason that rented premises were situated in the Clifton Cantonment. It was urged that the ejectment application was invalid being signed and presented by an unauthorised person. Besides, it was not instituted with the approval and authority of the Board of Directors of Habib Bank Limited which is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance. Moreover, application for ejectment was bad for non-joinder of other legal heirs of late Ahmed Habib who inherited tenancy rights and were living in the premises. These persons were subsequently impleaded as party to ejectment proceedings.
6. On facts it was pleaded that late Ahmed Habib has purchased the plot of land, on which he constructed a bungalow at his own cost, in which he lived with all other members of his famlily, Some' times later, he sold the property to the appellant Bank. The said bungalow was placed at his disposal for his official residence as he was the Chairman of the Bank which position he held from 1941 to 1972 when he retired. Subsequent to nationalisation of the Bank in 1974 appellant Bank rented the said premises to late Ahmed Habib at a monthly rent of Rs,2,562.50 and he retained such possession till his death in 1980. On his death tenancy rights were inherited by his widow, seven sons and three daughters, some of whom had been living in the rented premises and paying rent to the appellant Bank. It was denied that the premises remained vacant for quite some time or that the rent of Rs,2,562.50 was at relevant time nominal. Besides the tenants had been maintaining, repairing and renovating the property at their own cost inasmuch as the Bank had not spent single penny on repairs and maintenance thereof. With regard to the letters sent to respondent No,1 to vacate the premises it was maintained that a legally enforceable agreement of sale of property in question had been concluded between the appellant and the heirs of late Ahmed Habib. Respondents had been time and again requiring the appellant to execute a sale- deed pursuant to concluded agreement but the appellant with ulterior motives all along kept them on promises. According to respondents, ejectment proceedings were initiated with ulterior motive in an attempt to avoid performance of the contract of sale and to coerce the legal heirs of deceased to agree to enhance sale consideration of the demised premises. Respondent No,1 maintained that he had already instituted Suit No,243 of 1990 for specific performance of the contract which was pending adjudication. Personal requirement in good faith on the part of appellant was specifically disputed.
7. At the trial, Sarwar Alam an officer and attorney of the Bank serving in Establishment Cell was examined who produced various documents in support of the case. On the other hand, respondent Mohsin Ahmed Habib besides appearing as respondents' witness led the evidence of his attorney S.M. Askari.
8. When this appeal came up for hearing on an earlier occasion before me finding on Issue No,1 with regard to jurisdiction of the Controller was agitated at some length. However, both the counsel conceded that notwithstanding location of the property in Clifton area, Controller had the jurisdiction to proceed with the ejectment application as no evidence was produced on record to show that the property fell within the jurisdiction of Additional Controller, Cantonment Board, Karachi. Hearing on Issue No,2 was, however, deferred as the counsel for appellant appeared to be unaware of the proceedings in the suit for specific performance filed by the respondents.
9. At a later hearing, I have had the benefit of hearing arguments of both the learned counsel and examining relevant evidence on record. In his evidence appellant's witness claimed that the appellant Bank has 1880 Branches inclusive of 63 Branches located in foreign countries. Besides there are four Provincial Headquarters of the Bank each headed by a Senior Executive who controls and manages all the Branches of the Prance. He further stated that Senior Executives of the appellant Bank posted outside Pakistan had to come to Karachi for business purposes and appellant had to arrange for their lodging and boarding at Karachi. Statement Exh.A-4 signed by a Vice-President of the Bank was produced to show the visits by various Senior Executives of the Bank who visited Karachi in the year 1989 and stayed at different hotels reflecting the expenditure of Rs,7,14,967.47 on their accommodation. Photo copies of certain bills from Karachi Sheraton Hotel and Taj Mehal Hotel were filed to substantiate expenditure on such account. One of such bills tends to reflect the payment of Rs,19,128.70 for lunch hosted in honour of his Excellency Shaikh Sultan Bin Khalid Bin Sultan Al-Qasim of Sharja, U.A.E. Appellant's witness, however, appeared to be completely unaware and not conversant with such visits or disbursement of bills for lodging and boarding of various Executes including some foreign delegations. At any rate, bill relating to disbursement of lunch expenses for Shaikh Sultan Bin 'Khalid of Sharja is completely out of context and has no nexus with the visits of the Senior Executives of the Bank as alleged. The bills exhibited in evidence furthermore, do not establish the lodging and boarding of as many as 76 Executives of the Bank in different hotels at the instance of the appellant Bank in 1989 or earlier and subsequent years.
10. From the various letters placed on record, it appears that from 14th March, 1979 Bank's Legal Division started writing to late Ahmed Habib to vacate the premises as the same were needed for use of the Bank which were promptly replied with the assertion that the Bank could not unilaterally terminate the tenancy because there was no default in payment of rent. It further appears that rent remitted for May, 1979 as well as for some later months was not accepted by the Bank and the pay orders returned. These were followed by a strong protest by the Legal Advisor of the deceased tenant. Subsequently the Bank addressed letters to legal heirs of the deceased and more particularly to Mohsin Ahmed Habib to vacate the premises since Ahmed Habib had expired and the premises were lying vacant. This statement of fact was vehemently disputed whereafter the Bank came forward with the stand that the premises were required for accommodating the President of the Bank coupled with a threat to initiate appropriate legal action for eviction of the respondents. Consequently respondents invoked the jurisdiction of Controller and started depositing rent payable to the appellant Bank. Subsequently by letter, dated 12-6-1986 appellant approached the Chairman, Pakistan Banking Council asserting that the deceased tenant having declined to hand over possession of the premises to Bank was served with legal notice to vacate the same. The Bank refused to accept the rent whereupon respondents deposited rent in Court and after the death of Ahmed Habib, his family continued to hold on possession of the property. In their letter Bank suggested that in view of past services of late Ahmed Habib to the Bank it was considered desirable that rather than filing a suit for ejectment some via-media be found to resolve the dispute amicably. The matter was, therefore, negotiated with the heirs of late Ahmed Habib who had in the meantime approached the Bank for purchase of this property. Later went on to add that finally the Bank had agreed upon sale of the property for Rs,23,12,806.94, of which Rs,2,36,914.75 was the book value price of the premises as on 31-12-1973 while the balance on account of interest at 10% per annum for 12 years up to 31-12-1985. On its part, Pakistan Banking Council informed the appellant Bank that this issue did not require its approval but before sale, market value of the property should be got verified from the Architect of repute as well as from Estate Brokers. Appellant Bank even thereafter continued to correspond with the Banking Council but to my mind it would not be proper and advisable to dilate upon the offer and acceptance of the proposal for sale of the property or otherwise as this issue is sub judice in the suit filed by the respondents.
11. There is another aspect of the case. Initially the Bank needed the premises for accommodating its President as reflected in the letters addressed to deceased but the case set up before the Controller is that these premises are required for accommodating various Bank Executives visiting its Head Office in connection with official business from all over Pakistan as well as foreign countries. Quite clearly there is glaring in-consistency in the stand of the Bank reflecting lack of bona fides and good faith on its part in seeking the eviction of the respondents. Assuming without conceding that the Bank needed the premises for accommodating its Senior Executives there is nothing on record to show that the Bank took really serious steps for accommodating such Executives in any other building owned or hired by the Bank. Seemingly it is quite conventional for the Banks to reimburse lodging expenses of its Executives who visit their Head Office in connection with official business and this is hardly and strong and satisfactory ground to conclude that the requirement of the premises by appellant Bank is absolutely bona fide and in good faith. The circumstance that the Bank during the exchange of letters with the deceased and after his death with the respondents refused to accept the rent who were obliged to deposit the same in the office of Controller would tend to show that it wanted to pressurize the respondents to agree to terms of their choice.
12. Lastly, appellant Bank having agreed to sell the premises to the respondents at a formula worked out between the parties would suggest that the need and requirement of the Bank if any was hardly bona fide and in good faith. Knowing fully well that the premises could not be disposed of at market value for want of vacant possession the Bank appears to have invoked jurisdiction of the Controller with unclean hands in order to coerce the respondents. Most probably idea in seeking ejectment of the respondents on the ground of personal requirement was to compel them to enhance the offer for the purchase of the premises and to my mind recourse to expensive litigation did not have an element of bona fide intention. In law while a landlord is given the privilege and prerogative to use this property for self-occupation such requirement must be manifested by good faith, reasonable, genuine and absolute requirement. The onus of proof of bona fide requirement is certainly and entirely on the landlord. Lack of reasonableness and justness of cause on the part of landlord may quite clearly suggest and prompt the Controller to decline ejectment holding that such requirement was not bona fide. Mere wish or intention of the landlord is not sufficient to give him a right to evict a tenant or to uproot and terminate such tenancy without absolute necessity and justification for the premises. Intention of the landlord in any event must be genuine, honest and manifestly realistic. Mere desire convenience, whim or fancy of the landlord would not at all be enough to show that the premises are required in good faith.
13. There is another aspect of the case. In the suit tiled by the respondents an interim injunction order has been obtained against the Bank restraining it from evicting the tenants during the pendency of the suit. In the circumstances, Bank would he acting in violation of prohibitory order by pursuing the remedy of eviction before this forum. At any event, appellant has failed to make out a case for eviction of the respondents and to my mind learned Controller did not commit any illegality by refusing to direct ejectment of the respondents.
14. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no merit in this appeal which must fail and is hereby dismissed.