ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.--This appeal with leave of the Court calls in question the correctness of the judgment delivered on 2-8-1994, by the learned Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court whereby, the appeal, preferred by the respondent was accepted, the judgment of the learned Rent Controller was set aside and consequently, application filed by the respondent under the Rent Laws for ejectment of the appellant from the disputed shop, was accepted.
2. The relevant portion of the leave granting order reads as follows:- "It has been pointed out that this is the third eviction application of its kind; the first was instituted on 23-5-1979, one of the grounds being that the premises were required for the use of the landlady's son named Mohyuddin Ahmed Farooqi; that application was, withdrawn on 11-8-1981.
The second eviction application was filed on 19-8-1981, the ground then being that the premises were required for the use of the landlady's son Muhammad Ahmad Farooqi. The learned Rent Controller dismissed that application holding that the premises were not required in good faith by the landlady. In the High Court, the eviction application was withdrawn and the rent was raised to Rs,550. The present petition was on the ground that the premises were required for the use of the landlady's son Hassan Ahmad Farooqi."
3. Factual aspect of the case is that the respondent/landlady filed an application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance seeking eviction of the appellant/tenant from the shop in question on the following grounds:-- "(1) That the applicant's real son namely Hassan Ahmed Farooqi is presently studying in Government Degree College, Quetta in B.Com. However, in future instead of joining service he intends to start his own business of spare parts etc.
(2) That the applicant required the shop in question for personal bona fide use and occupation of her son namely Hassan Ahmed Farooqi in order to enable him to start business of motor spare parts etc. In the shop in question which is occupied by the respondent as tenant and which is very suitable to start such business."
4. The reply to the application by the tenant (appellant) was that it was mala fide and that it was brought so as to coerce and pressurize him to increase the rent. The allegation of mala fide was explained in the following manner:--
(3) That the contents of para. No,3 of the application are not admitted to be correct. The requirement of the shop in question by the applicant for his said son is not bona fide and reasonable and to the contrary is mala fide.
(i) Briefly the background of the case is that the shop in question was originally rented out to one Sadiq by the applicant against the monthly rent of Rs,20 only, against whom eviction application was filed on the ground of personal requirement, who consequently was evicted therefrom and thereafter instead of utilizing the shop by the applicant for which the tenant was evicted, leased out to this respondent in the year, 1977 and an amount of Rs,60,000 was received by the applicant by way of goodwill of the shop in question from the respondent. Rent deed was also executed between the parties and the rent was fixed to be Rs,200 per month.
(ii) In May, 1979 the applicant filed eviction application against the respondent on the ground that the shop in question was required by her for the needs and requirement of her son namely Mohyuddin Ahmed for the purposes of business and during the pendency of the eviction proceedings enhanced the rent of the shop to Rs,300 per month and on 8-11-1981 withdrew the eviction application.
(iii) For the 2nd time eviction application against the respondent was filed by the applicant on the ground that the shop in question was required for the needs of business of her another son namely Muhammad Ahmed Farooqi, who too at the relevant time was studying. In August, 1987 the eviction application was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge-II/Rent Controller, Quetta and against dismissal, Appeal was preferred in the Honourable High Court of Balochistan, Quetta and the same was disposed of as per compromise between the parties on 20-3-1988 by enhancement of the rent of the shop to Rs,550 per month.
(iv) After some time the rent of the shop on demand of the applicant was raised to Rs,600 per month and a few months thereafter the applicant's attorney and husband insisted for the increase of rent to Rs,700 per month or to face eviction proceedings. The respondent, thus, under the compelling circumstances, accepted the demand and agreed to pay Rs,700 per month.
(v) A month prior to the institution of the present eviction application demand was made persistently on behalf of the applicant by her husband to pay the rent at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month and to pay additionally an amount of Rs,22,000 to the applicant by way of enhanced rent with retrospective effect on the ground that the rent was not to her satisfaction increased previously; also to face eviction proceedings.
(vi) The alleged requirement of the shop in question by the applicant for her son is mala fide. The applicant in fact intends to raise the rent of the shop to Rs,1,000 per month in addition to it, wants to extract money from the respondent on one or the other pretext. She had been successfully doing the same even previously by filing eviction application on the same ground."
5. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 19-3-1994, held that the applicant/landlady failed to prove her bona fide that she needed the shop for her son and as such dismissed the application, but by the impugned judgment the learned Chief Justice came to a contrary conclusion and held that no mala fide was involved and that the applicant in good faith requires the disputed shop for the business of her son.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the conduct of the landlady/respondent has not been kept in view by the High Court while declaring her entitled to get the shop vacated for the use of her son. It was explained that the landlady had before the present application brought three other ejectment applications, out of which one was against the previous tenant Siddique and two against his client on the same ground of personal need of her son. This point has been clarified in detail in the written statement which has been reproduced above and, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same factual aspect again. Article 21 of Qanun-e- Shahadat and Syed Hamid Mahmood Gilani v. Abdul Rehman 1996 SCM R 1097 was referred in support of his submission. In reply, the learned counsel pleading for the respondent first pointed out that the Order-sheet of this Court dated 20-5-1998, and 19-5-1998, would show that offer of three times increase in rent was refused by the respondent. He stressed that there was no denial of the fact that Hassan Ahmed Farooqi, for whom the shop is required, is jobless and the landlady has no other shop for the business of her son. He supported his submission by National Development Finance Corporation, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam, Lahore v. Shaikh Naseem-ud-Din and 4 others PLD 1997 SC 564; Fazal Azim and another v. Tariq Mahmood and another PLD 1982 SC 218 and Shamsul Islam Khan v. Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. 1985 SCM R 1996.
7. The crucial and decisive point in the present litigation is as to whether the landlady has succeeded by leading reliable and sufficient evidence to prove that the disputed shop is required by her for the use of her son Hassan Ahmed Farooqi. If this fact stands substantiated on record, then the other matter like previous conduct of the landlady and her filing earlier ejectment applications to get the tenant ejected from the disputed shop for the use of her other sons would become a matter of secondary importance. It is not denied that previous conduct is relevant fact and for that reason the evidence bearing on personal need of the present son, must be closely examined as in such a case it requires, to be determined 'whether the conduct militates against her bona fide claim of her personal need in respect of the son for whom it is required in the present litigation. It is important to note that the learned counsel for the appellant did not refer to the evidence on record to argue that it was lacking in proving bona fide need and he all along stressed and relied only on the previous conduct of the respondent by referring to the earlier ejectment applications which had been filed for her two sons other than the one for whom it is now required.
So, it can safely be presumed that the learned counsel could not point out any defect in the evidence led by the landlady to prove her requirement or in other words the evidence on record was sufficient to substantiate that the shop was needed for Hassan Ahmed Farooqi. The learned Chief Justice was correct in holding that the need for Hassan Ahmed Farooqi is independent cause of action from the need of her other sons for whom the earlier applications had been filed and the present application was, therefore, required to be adjudged on its own merits, irrespective of the previous litigation. It is important to note that more than 20 years ago, on 23-5-1979, the landlady brought the first application for ejectment of the then tenant for the occupation of the shop by her son Mohyuddin Ahmed Farooqi and it could not be refuted that her son during the course of time joined service in Radio Pakistan and as the efforts to get the tenant ejected in time having frustrated, naturally the matter was compromised. It could also not be controverted that the landlady filed second application for ejectment on 19-8-1981, and it is deplorable to note that in full 7 years it could not be decided even by the trial Court, so her son left for America to earn his livelihood and the litigation, thus, ended through compromise. It is by now well-settled that mere demand for enhancement of rent and previous ejectment applications would not detract from the veracity of an eviction petition based on personal need if it is A instituted in changed circumstances on a different cause of action and is substantiated by reliable evidence to prove bona fide personal need. The judgment reported as 1996 SCM R 1097, relied on by appellant's Advocate proceeds on entirely different facts as in that case bona fide need could not be established. On the other hand the precedent cases relied on from respondent's side support the contention raised by the learned Advocate. It is to be emphasized that the respondent could not get the premises vacated for the last 20 years and her previous efforts in this respect had become infructuous by efflux of time, therefore, the appellant is directed to deliver the vacant possession of the disputed shop before 30th November, 1999, and if he failed to do so then after the expiry of this period the appellant shall be evicted by force with the aid of Polite even without prior notice. The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.