1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---There is a background to the present litigation. Initially, somewhere in 1982, Rent Case No,209 of 1982 was filed in respect of the same commercial premises, but against one Anwar. Such was dismissed on 12-2-1984 on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. F.R.A.No,375 of 1984 taken against the dismissal. Was itself dismissed on 27-4- 1987. It was evidentally thereafter that the present rent case bearing No,253 of 1987 was instituted, this time citing respondent. Saga Printers, as the tenant. The ground for eviction remained the same and that is reflected in the following paragraph of the ejectment application:- "3. That the applicants bona fide need the premises for their personal need for establishing a photo colour laboratory."
2. ' Upon entering defence, the tenant replied to the above paragraph as below:- "3. That the contents of para. 3 of the application are denied. It is denied that the applicant requires the premises in case bona fide for her and her spouse's need for establishing a photo colour laboratory. It is further submitted that a bigger portion of the premises in the building has fallen vacant which has been rented out to another person on a higher rent. Had the premises been required by the applicant for her and her spouse's personal need, she should not have let out premises on rent which has fallen vacant. Further, the applicant has sufficient accommodation to establish photo colour laboratory as entire first and second flour is in occupation of the applicant."
3. ' In evidence Sheikh Mohammad Nooruddin, husband of the landlady, examined himself.
4. Reiterating the plea as to personal need, he states in his cross-examination that some of the machinery for establishing the laboratory reached Pakistan in the year 1981 and the rest in the years 1982 and 1983 on different dates. It seems to have been conceded in the cross-examination that the said laboratory was initially installed on the first floor of the building. The under-noted passage refers:- "It is correct that previously I had established my laboratory on the first floor but that was closed because of vibration of press machines running in the demised premises. The laboratory was closed before filing the case against Anwer."
5. ' As to the availability of other commercial premises in the building, the below appearing details were provided by S.M. Nooruddin, when being cross-examined and, what is more, it seems to have been conceded that the change of tenancy in respect of one such premises from tenant Latif to Nazar Muhammad was a mere change of receipt:-- "There are three shops on the ground floor of the building in question. In one of the shop, one Nazar Muhammad is tenant. It is correct that at the time when the building was purchased by my wife, the said Nazar Muhammad was not tenant in the shop, however, one Latif was tenant in the said shop. It is incorrect to suggest that after the vacation of shop by Latif, it was rented out to Nazar Muhammad as there was mutual arrangement between Latif and Nazar Muhammad. Voluntarily says at that time I was in Saudi Arabia. In my absence my sons used to collect the rents from the tenants. It is correct that my wife, the owner was in Karachi. It is correct that subsequently we accepted Nazar Muhammad as our tenant and started issuing receipts in his name. It is incorrect to suggest that the change of tenancy took place with the consent of the applicant. In my view, no notice was issued to Nazar Muhammad by the applicant or by any body else on her behalf for the illegal change of tenancy."
6. ' From the side of the tenant, D.W. Muhammad Sadiq was examined. He questioned the bona fides of the requirement. He alleged that the commercial tenant-hold in the occupation of Latif, aforesaid, was made over to Nazar Muhammad after the landlady purchased the property and that, in any case, the landlady had in the meantime constructed the second floor with sufficient space on the first to accommodate and to provide for the laboratory.
7. ' The learned Controller as well as the High Court declined relief and dismissed the ejectment proceedings on the grounds of want of bona fides transfer of a tenant-hold while such could be resorted to for satisfying the personal need and other technical aspects. Leave was granted in this Court on 3-7-1994 to consider whether there was material on the record for return of the foregoing findings by the Courts below.
8. It is correct, as pointed out in Saira Bai v. Anisur Rahman, 1989 SCM R 1366, that the concept of "good faith" in section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 involves the elements of honesty of purpose and reasonableness. None of this seems to have been wanting in the instant proceedings. The very fact that the machinery for establishing a photo colour laboratory was imported around the time the first set of eviction proceedings was launched incontrovertibly established the bona fides of the requirement. Relevant reasonableness itself is borne out from the, record since the first floor accommodation of the building was not adequate for the installation of such machinery and in fact an effort in that direction is clearly shown to have been given up. Even otherwise, it could plausibly be argued, as has been done before us, that the ground floor tenement was more suitable for such an activity. The good faith of the requirement, in the circumstances, thus, stands established.
9. ' Taking up the next question in the controversy viz, that the landlady deliberately parted with an available commercial space and thereby negated her case of personal requirement, Mr Muhammad Muzaffar-ul-Haque, the appellants' learned counsel, places reliance on Mansoorul Haq v. Akbar Ali, 1994 CLC 48, a case decided by one of us, namely, Mamoon Kazi, J., while in the High Court. The relevant passage occurring in that precedent is as follows:-- "No doubt, it was established that the wife of the landlord had let out certain premises on rent during the intervening period, as earlier pointed out, but this evidence in no way can defeat the case of the appellant in regard to his personal need. Mr Naraindas Motiani has referred to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard which are as follows:--
(1) Sardar Khan v. Riaz Ahmed (1986 SCM R 1981)
(2) Allah Ditta v. Mst. Rasoolan Bibi (1976 SCMR 459)
(3) Muhammad Latif v. Hakim Nisar Ahmed (1986 SCM R 650)
(4) Dildat Hussain Nayar v. Niaz Muhammad Dar (1985 SCM R 1769)
10. ' It was emphasized in the above cases that the selection of the premises is a matter of choice for the landlord and the mere fact that some shops had been let out earlier by the landlord is not sufficient to defeat his plea for personal requirement. I would like to point out that in case the tenant wants to rely upon such evidence, it will be necessary to seek explanation of the landlord on the point first."
11. We subscribe to the same view which, as seen, is duly documented by various decisions from this very jurisdiction. Mere letting out of other premises by a landlord either before or after the institution of eviction proceedings on the ground of personal need in itself is not always enough to non-suit the landlord. Once the landlord has duly acquitted himself by stating on oath that this requirement is in 'good faith" as understood in law, he should normally be deemed to have discharged his burden, which, thereupon shifts to the tenant for whom it remains initially, to cross- examine the landlord and, that being done, lead his own evidence in rebuttal. In the same context where other premises, if any, are shown to have been let out in anticipation of or in the face of eviction proceedings, based on personal requirement, it has to be shown firstly, that similar premises were so let out or otherwise parted with, secondly, that the physical possession was first acquired by or otherwise subsisted with the landlord before being made over and finally, that the timing of such act or acts made it unconscionable for the landlord to maintain the matching eviction proceedings.
12. ' In the circumstances of this case, it is obvious that the landlady never acquired the physical possession of the tenant-hold occupied by Latif, aforesaid, and that, at best, it was a case of mere change of receipt in circumstances, where the landlady may not have had any option of her own.
13. Besides, it could not be established and burden for such lay on the tenant, that the change of tenancy took place in close proximity of the time when the demand for the personal requirement was raised. Nothing, therefore, turned on such aspect of the matter.
14. ' Lastly, it has been contended by Mr Shafaat Hussain for the respondent that the plea of personal requirement was vague. But that is of no account in view of what was said in the case of Saira Bai (supra) as a room for elaboration of the pleas id such cases of personal requirement has to be left.
15. Then, it was urged, though somewhat faintly, that there were two other commercial units in the same building, one of which was more suitable for the personal requirement, and yet the landlady did not opt for the same. The law is too well-established on the point viz. That a landlord has a complete option to choose from one of the several tenements occupied by tenants to avail of the personal requirement and the discretion is not assailable, except in the rarest cases of bad faith.
16. ' In the result, this appeal is allowed and the orders of the Controller and the High Court are set aside. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate provided always that due rents are paid regularly and provided further that in case the tenant fails to vacate upon expiry of the time granted, the landlady would be free to seek execution which may be allowed without notice, with necessary police aid and breaking open of the lock, if the same becomes necessary. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.