1. ' This appeal impugns the order passed by the Learned Bird Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi Central in Rent Case No, 39 of 1990 whereby the Appellant was required to vacate the rented premises i,e, shop within sixty (60) days of the order and hand over the peaceful possession to the respondent.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the landlord of a shop situated in the ground floor of House No,781, Block No,7, Federal 'B' Area Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs,175 which fact was not denied by the appellant before the Learned Trial Court. In January 1990 the respondent filed Rent Case No, 39 of 1990 against the Appellant seeking his eviction from the said shop on the basis of his own personal need i,e, that he required the shop for the use of his son namely Syed Karrar Azeem, who wanted to do the business of books and stationery therein. It was also pleaded in the said Rent Case that the respondent had been requesting the appellant to vacate the said shop for a long time and finally in November 1989, a legal notice had also been dispatched to the appellant for this purpose in response to which the appellant flatly refused to vacate the shop and denied that it was required for the Respondents own personal need and for that of his son.
3. ' The appellant filed a written Statement before the learned trial Court whereby the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. However, it was denied that the shop was required by the Respondent bona finely for his own personal need and that of his son. It was also maintained by the appellant that in fact the house was purchased by the respondent in March 1984 from its previous owner Mst. Firdous Jehand when the respondent was already a tenant of the shop.
4. Thereafter, the respondent sent notices regarding change of ownership to the opponent and the tenants of the other three shops located in the house and also requested all the tenants to vacate all the shops on the basis of his personal need. Then the respondent filed Rent Case No, 1804 of 1985 and Rent Case No, 1805 of 1985 against two of his tenants on the basis of his need and that of his son which were dismissed and thereafter, he filed F.R.As. Nos. 945 of 1986 and 946 of 1986 against such dismissal order which appeals were also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter the respondent compromised with both these tenants after enhancement of monthly rent and acceptance of pugri. It was also stated in the written statement that the Respondent had previously asked the appellant to either give him Pugri plus enhanced rent for his shop or vacate the same. Consequently it is the appellant's case that the shop in question is not required by the Respondent bona fidely for his own personal need or for that of his son.
5. ' The respondent filed his affidavit-in-evidence as well as that of Syed Haider Abbas Naqvi, Karrar Kazim and Syed Moazziz Hussain Naqvi. All the persons who had filed such affidavits were cross- examined except Syed Moazziz Hussain Naqvi. So also the appellant examined himself via an affidavit and was cross-examined. After hearing the arguments of 'both the learned counsel, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that in fact the respondent required the rented premises i,e,, the shop for his own personal need and consequently passed the impugned order and hence this Appeal.
6. ' I have heard both the learned counsel and have gone through the record and proceedings of the learned trial Court and my conclusions are as follows:- ' Essentially only one issue arises in this appeal and that is whether the Respondent needed the rented premises i,e, shop for his own personal need in good faith. Unfortunately the Learned Rent Controller has also framed two other issues to the effect that whether the appellant had sub-let the shop in question to one Saeed Ahmed and whether the appellant has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rent. In my view neither were these issues raised before the learned Rent Controller in the application or in the written statement nor was any evidence lead on these two issues. Consequently I shall confine my findings only on the issue whether the respondent needed the rented premises in good faith for his own personal need.
7. ' Mr. Tasawar Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended before me that during his cross-examination the respondent has admitted that he had accepted enhanced rent for the two other shops as well as pugri after being unsuccessful in having the tenants thereof evicted via rent cases and subsequent appeals i,e, F.R.A. Nos. 945 of 1986 and 946 of 1986. Learned Counsel has also taken me through the common order whereby these appeals were dismissed wherein it was held that the respondent had failed to make out a case for personal need in good faith on the ground that prior to filing of the rent cases he had been negotiating the rental of the shops with the tenants thereof on the basis of enhanced rent and pugree which fact was admitted by the Respondent during cross-examination. So also learned Counsel has emphasized that it has come in evidence through the respondent and his witnesses that he was in fact a religious teacher and scholar and hence was quite incapable of doing any business alongwith his son in the shop in question. Similarly it has been stressed that the video recording of the negotiations between the parties (which was displayed in open Court before me) clearly showed the respondent offering the appellant continuation of the tenancy on enhanced rent and pugree, In view of all these circumstances learned counsel, therefore, contends that the Respondent has not been able to make out any case of personal need in good faith.
8. ' On the other hand Mr. S. Ali Haider Rizvi for the respondent has contended that all along before the Trial Court i,e,, in his eviction application, affidavit-in-evidence and cross-examination, the respondent has steadfully maintained that he required the shop for the personal need of his son who wanted to do business therein. Further, learned counsel stressed that as far as the other shops which were the subject matter of F.R.As. 945 of 1986 and 946 of 1986, the original tenants thereof were Abdul Latif and S.M. Habib whereas the new tenants are Rafiq and Rashid. The respondent's cross-examination has established that Rafiq came to him directly after he lost F.R.As. 945 of 1986 and 946 of 1986 and offered him enhanced rent and pugree on the basis that he would obtain possession from the original tenants which he accepted for both the shops and let out one to Rafiq and the other to Rashid on these terms as he had no other option after his F.R.As. Were dismissed.
9. Learned Counsel has relied upon the following cases in support of his propositions:-
(1) Khawaja Imran Ahmed v. Noor Ahmed and others (1992 SCM R 1152).
(2) Muhammad Ayub Khan v. Muhammad Suleman Soomro (1984 CLC 50).
(3) Mst. Shamsunisa and others v. S.Mehmood Rizvi (1985 CLC 2105)
(4) Nikhat Riaz v. Manzoor Hussain (1985 M LD 1533)
(5) M. Mushtaq v. A. Qadir (1985 CLC 2552).
10. In my view in order to obtain eviction of the rented premisses for his own need a landlord has to approach the Court with clean hands and establish his bona fide need for the premises in good faith. As long as he is able to do so, the Court is not called upon to enquire into any other factual circumstances etc. ' I have no cavil with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and which have been relied upon by Learned Counsel for the respondent. Said propositions are to the effect that the landlord has to establish his bona fide personal need for the rented premises which have to be rebutted by the Tenant. I am afraid in the present case the respondent has not been able to do so as displayed firstly by his conduct in the previous round of litigation whereby it was held in the order dismissing F.R.As. 945 of 1986 and 946 of 1986 that he had been negotiating enhanced rent and pugree with the tenants of the other shops in question. It was specifically observed in those cases by a Single Judge of this Court that the tenants witnesses had categorically stated in their affidavits-in-evidence that the Respondent had demanded enhanced rent plus pugree from the tenants which statement had gone unrebutted as no questions were asked in cross-examination on this issue. In the present case to the appellant had deposed to the same effect and again his statement had gone unrebutted. Similarly the Appellant's stand as to the vacation of the other shops before induction of new tenants i,e, Abdul Rafiq and Rashid Sajjad at enhanced rates and pugree remain unchallenged in cross-examination. It would also see that the appellants witness Abdul Rafiq had also deposed to the effect that after vacation of the other shops by the previous tenants i,e,, Abdul Lateef and S.M. Habib he and Rashid Sajjad occupied the same on enhanced rent and pugree. So also Abdul Rafiq deposed that the respondent had clearly mentioned in his presence as well as other persons that after vacation of the rented premises he would easily get a pugree of Rs,100,000 for the same and consequently he would be willing to continue the tenancy of the appellant provided he gave him i,e, Respondent a sum of Rs,80,000 as he is a sitting tenant. This statement has also gone unrebutted by the respondent.
11. In these circumstances I am of the clear opinion and the respondent does not need the premises i,e,, shop for his personal bona fide need i,e,, for the purpose of using it for his son's benefit. The appellant and his witnesses Abdul Rafiq have unequivocally stated in their affidavits-in-evidence that the respondent had declared in front of the other tenants and neighbours his intention to rent out the shop in question after obtaining its possession at enhanced pugree of Rs,100,000 and had offerd him the same at Rs,80,000statement had gone unrebutted. So also I have also seen the video recording of the negotiations between the parties to this effect which piece of evidence is which admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance. In the circumstances this Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.