1. ' These two rent appeals under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1979) are directed against one and the same judgment, dated 17-12- 1992 passed by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Karachi East in Rent Case No,626 of 1991. First Rent Appeal No,35 of 1993 has been filed by the tenant whose ejectment was ordered on the ground of personal need whereas the First Rent Appeal No,34 of 1993 has been preferred by the landlord whose other grounds for ejectment were rejected.
2. ' Appellant in First Rent Appeal No,35 of 1993, namely Zahoorul Hassan is tenant in respect of a shop which belonged to deceased Habib Bakhsh who rented out the same to him. Respondent in that appeal namely Muhammad Ismail is the son of Habib Bakhsh and he filed an application under section 15 of the Ordinance, 1979 for eviction of Zahoorul Hassan on grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and bona fide personal need. The person who is allegedly the sub-tenant was also joined as opponent in that application and who is also an appellant in First Rent Apepal No,35 of 1993. The application was contested and parties examined themselves in support of their respective case. The ejectment was ordered only on the ground of personal need.
3. ' I heard Mr. Muniruddin Alvi, advocate in support of the landlord and Mr. Imran Ahmed, Advocate who appeared for the tenant and the alleged subtenant. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that the tenant committed default in the payment of rent for five years which related to the period prior to the default of Habib Bakhsh. No evidence was produced to prove this default.
4. Admittedly, Muhammad Ismail had nothing to do with the tenancy till the death of his father. It is also an admitted position that Habib Bakhsh had also filed a case for ejectment of Zahoorul Hassan on the ground of default but his plea was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller as well as by this Court. I agree with the findings of the learned Rent Controller that no default was committed.
5. Now coming to the issue of sub-letting I find that the same has also not been proved. It was alleged that the shop was sublet to one Shahab Hashim, without consent of the landlord. However, the tenant deposed that Shahab Hashim is his soninlaw and also his business associate. Shahab Hashim who was a party in the rent application was also examined in Court and he re-affirmed the statement of Zahoorul Hassan, thus, the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller that sub-letting was not established is just and proper.
6. ' So far as the personal need of the landlord is concerned it was stated in his application as follows: ' That at present the opponent has one shop attached with his house, and keeping in view the expansion of business, and for accommodation of his young son, needs in good faith the shop under possession of the opponents."
7. ' In his affidavit-of-evidence, Muhammad Ismail (landlord) reiterated his position in the following words: "That I say that the applicant ,absolutely in good faith and with bona fide intention, needs the said shop for the personal use of himself and for the use of his sons, keeping in view the expansion of business. Since the shop in occupation of the applicant is not sufficient for himself, as well as for his two sons, therefore, the applicant in good faith is trying to get the shops vacated through legal means."
8. ' The tenant denied the personal need of the landlord and stated in his evidence as follows: "That the applicant has also filed ejectment case against another tenant of the adjacent shop belonging to the deceased landlord and the applicant has other shops in his use and occupation at Plot No,3/1317 Shah Faisal Colony and he does not require the subject shop for personal bona fide use for his any son."
9. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the landlord which militates against the requirements for the demised shop. The mere fact that he owns other shops will not disentitle him to the subject shop because it is the prerogative of the landlord to decide which shop is suited to his needs. This issue was also decided rightly by the learned Rent Controller.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that both these appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly but there shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.