' KAMAL MANSUR ALAM,. J.-This order will dispose of the above 27 petitions arising out of the same judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh and involving common questions of fact and law.
2. The respondent insurance company is the owner of the commercial building now renamed as Khan Mansion, and previously known as Zeenat Mansion, situated on I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, having purchased the same in a Court auction. At the time of its purchase, the building was already occupied by as many as 43 tenants. By notice dated 30-3-1991 the respondent intimated all the 43 tenants that the building had been purchased by it for its own use and occupation and accordingly called upon the tenants to vacate the respective premises in their occupation. The tenants having failed to comply with the said demand, the respondent filed 43 separate applications before the Rent Controller for the eviction of all the tenants on the ground that the entire building was required by the respondent for its Head Office and Zonal Office (South). While the matter was pending before the learned Rent Controller, 2 of the 43 tenants entered into compromise with the respondent and vacated the premises in their occupation. The eviction applications against the remaining 41 tenants, including the petitioners, were allowed by the Rent Controller, whereupon 41 tenants filed separate appeals in the High Court, where 5 more tenants settled their dispute with the respondent and consequently vacated the premises in their occupation. The remaining 36 appeals, including those of the petitioners, were dismissed by the learned Judge by the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard M/s. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Niaz Ahmed Khan, Habib-ur-Rahman, Nasrullah Awan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. They, inter alia, contend that the respondent had failed to establish its bona fides and that it required the entire building in good faith for its occupation, inasmuch as the respondent's Managing Director, who appeared as a witness, was neither aware of the built-up area of the building nor could specify the additional space required by the respondent for its offices, which information were vital for determining the actual need of the respondent and its bona fides; that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings the respondent purchased another building in the Clifton area of Karachi but failed to explain as to why this additional accommodation would not be enough to meet its requirement; that the eviction of such large number of tenants at the same time was not justified in law.
4. Leave is granted to examine the contention raised by the learned counsel. The operation of the impugned judgment will remain suspended and status quo will continue till the disposal of these appeals.
Leave granted.
2000 SC.M R 1624 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Rana Bhagwan Das, JJ Chaudary IRFAN ALI and another through Attorney---Petitioners versus ANWAR HAMEED---Respondent Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.76-K of 2000; decided on 20th March, 2000.
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 6-12-1999 in F.R.A. No.282 of 1998).
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Default in payment of rent and utility charges---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Finding of Rent Controller to the effect that tenants were in default in payment of rent including utility charges were duly affirmed by the High Court---Requirement of landlord for the premises for his own use and occupation was reasonable; bona fide in consonance with settled principles of law and evidence on record and there appeared no cogent reason to differ with the view taken by the two Courts below concurrently to that effect---Petition for leave to appeal of the tenant was dismissed in circumstances. [pp. 1625, 1626] A, B & C Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 2000
' RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6-12-1999 passed by the learned High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No.282 of 1998 concurring with the view taken by the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the petitioners from the residential premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement of the respondent.
2. Respondent sought ejectment of the petitioners from the tenanted premises on the ground of default in payment of rent including electricity, gas, water and conservancy charges as well as bona fide personal requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation. Respondent resisted the eviction application and disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. Accordingly learned Rent Controller struck down three relevant issues for decision and upon assessment of the evidence concluded that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the petitioner defaulted in payment of electric, gas, water and conservancy charges and that respondent had established his bona fide personal need for the demised premises. This order was challenged in the High Court but without any success, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts below had failed to appreciate that the petitioner had paid rent for the months of December, 1993 and January, 1994 by money order which was duly admitted by the respondent whereafter the rent was deposited in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.256 of 1994 in the office of the Rent Controller.
4. Learned counsel is partially correct to the extent of admission of receipt of rent by money order for the months of December, 1993 and January, 1994 by the respondent but he utterly failed to explain and establish from the record that the petitioner had not defaulted in payment of rent for the month of November, 1993 as alleged by the respondent and accepted by the two Courts. He was confronted with the candid and unequivocal admission of the petitioners' attorney Chaudhary Furcian Rashid Ali to the effect that in November, 1993 he did pay the rent to the respondent voluntarily stating that the latter did not come to collect the rent. This admission is also consistent with and in consonance with order under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1979) passed by the Rent Controller on 22-12-1997 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000 from November, 1993 within one month of the date of order. Furthermore, petitioners' attorney who appeared in the dock was compelled to concede in his evidence that at the time of filing rent case arrears of electricity bill amounting to Rs.21,000 were due though he conveniently avoided to admit that arrears on account of gas charges to the extent of Rs.3,5,00 were also due and payable. It is, thus, not difficult to concur with the finding of the Rent Controller duly affirmed by the High Court that the petitioners were in default in payment of rent including utility charges.
5. Adverting to the question of personal requirement of the premises bona fide by the respondent he was able to establish his requirement of the premises for self-occupation which was genuine and reasonable on the face of it. Even otherwise this plea does not appear to have been seriously contested by and on behalf of the petitioners. Indeed, the petitioners had chosen to adopt an unreasonable and adamant attitude by denying very title of the respondent is owner and landlord of the premises which stand was later dropped at the stage of evidence. It was rather asserted that certain amount of rent was paid in advance and still a larger sum by way of fixed deposit was with the landlord at the time of commencement of tenancy.
6. Since the petitioners have not been able to substantiate whether the requirement of the respondent for the premises for his own use and occupation was unreasonable or mala fide, there does not appear to be any cogent reason to differ with the view taken by the two Courts below concurrently. Furthermore, the view taken by the learned High Court is neither arbitrary nor in violation of the settled principles of law or contrary to the evidence on record.
7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons leave to appeal is refused and petition is dismissed. The petitioners are, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the premises subject to payment of usual rent and all utility charges failing which writ of ejectment shall issue without any prior notice..