1. ' This is an appeal under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Rent Ordinance) directed against an order dated 29-11-1994 passed by IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi South, in Rent Case No,514 of 1992 (Mst. Sughra Bai through her L.Rs, v. Pak Sanitary Engineering Co.) whereby the eviction application filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellants tenants were directed to vacate the premisses within five months.
2. ' Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed eviction application under section 15 of Rent Ordinance against the appellants/tenants in respect of Shop No, 1 property bearing Sheet No,9 Survey No,99 old sheet No,B-21/31 situated a Pakistan Chowk, Karachi, on the ground that the appellants have not paid rent from 1-1-1983 and after commission of said default for the second time, started deposit of rent in M.R.C. No, 1087 of 1983 as such deposited rent for the months from January, 1983 to March, 1983 on 19-3-1983 and that the respondents/applicants required the premisses for personal bona fide need of legal heir No, 3 of deceased respondent who was jobless and the shop premises was urgently needed for him to carry out some business. The appellants filed written statement stating therein that they have not committed any default in the payment of rent but from February, 1983 the respondent refused to accept rent consequently the rent was sent through money-order on 19-2-1983 but on refusal to accept the rent the rent was deposited in M.R.C. No,1087 of 1983 wherein the first deposit of rent was from January, 1983 to March, 1983 was made on 19-3-1983 and further that the respondent's need was not in good faith. It is stated that respondent's son Shabbir Hussain was carrying on the general order supplier in the name and style of M/s. S.H. Enterprises since last ten years in the 'adjoining office premises belonging to him and that the said premises was bigger in size than the disputed premises.
3. ' The respondent filed affidavit-in- evidence of Shabbir Hussain who produced photo copy of extract from the property register Annexure 'A' photo copy of rent receipt dated 1-12-1982, photo copy of notice dated 15-3-1992, registered postal receipt No, 268, dated 16th March, 1992, appellants filed affidavit-in-evidence of Saifuddin partner of the appellant firm who produced money order coupons Exhs. 0/1 and 0/2, photo copy of rent receipts deposited in the bank dated 19-3-1987 and 20-2-1992 in M.R.C. No,1087 of 1983 Exhs. 0/3 and 0/4, photo copy of the notice, dated 22nd December, 1983 from the respondents to the appellants, photo copy of reply of notice, dated 27-12-1993 from the appellants to the counsel for the respondents, photo copy of reply of notice from the appellants to the respondents' counsel dated 19th March, 1992. After the death of original respondent Mst. Sughrabai, her legal heir Shabbir Hussain again filed his own affidavit-in-evidence, appellant again filed affidavit-in-evidence who were cross-examined by the respective adversary counsel for the parties. After recording the above evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties the impugned order was passed.
4. ' I have heared the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and proceedings of the case and the case law cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. ' The eviction has been ordered only on the ground of personal bona fide need of the respondent. In the circumstances the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the alleged need for Shabbir Hussain is not bona fide as he has been carrying on business of general order suppliers in the name and style of M/s. S.H. Enterprises since last ten years and further that the said Shabbir Hussain did not even suggest to the appellants that he was not carrying on the said business, therefore, the respondents have failed to prove their requirement for the said Shabbir Hussain in good faith considering that the respondents have suppressed the material facts and mere statement of the respondents was not sufficient to prove good faith. He has placed reliance upon Muhammad Moosa Khwaja and another v. Haji Muhammad Umar (1995 M LD 1880), (ii) Mrs. Shahnoor Fazal v. Ghulam Akbar Mangi (1987 SCM R 2051) and (iii) Mst. Saira Bano v. Anisur Rehman (1989 SCM R 1366) in support of his contention.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondents in the eviction application have asserted that the shop in question was required bona fide for the use of Shabbir Hussain who was jobless and the said statement has been reiterated in the affidavit-in-evidence filed by Shabbir Hussain whereas his testimony and veracity in the cross-examination could not be shaken by the learned counsel for the appellants and thereby requirements in good faith stood proved honestly. He further submitted that minor contradictions in evidence would not demolish the case of the respondents with regard to their bona fide requirement in good faith. He further submitted that the respondents have only to prove that requirement for Shabbir Hussain is based on good faith with honest intention and immaterial inconsistencies and contradictions would not negate the entitlement of the respondent's landlords under the law. He further submitted that nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents were in possession of any other suitable shop premisses so as to disentitle them from getting the eviction of the shop premises. He submitted that the alleged assertion of the demand of enhanced rate of rent would not disentitle the respondents of the eviction of the appellants from the shop premises. He has placed reliance upon (i) Mst. Saira Bai v. Syed Anisur Rahman (1989 SCM R 1366), (ii) Haji Gul Muhammad v. Mst.
7. Asmat Ara 1988 SCM R 1412(2), Sultan Muhammad Sahir v. Shaukat Mehmood etc.. 1992 M LD 1962, Mst. Mumtaz Nasim v. Addl Distt. Judge, etc. 1992 CLC 306, (v) Abdul Waheed v. Muhammad Zia-ul- Haq. 1989 CLC 405, (vi) Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman (1980 SCM R 772), (vii)
8. M/s. Allied Bank Limited v. M/s Rahmat Sons Limited (1993 M LD 844), (viii) Ahmad Siddiqui v.
9. Shamsun-Nisa Begum (1988 CLC 1047), (ix) Anwar Javaid v. Mst Umeennisa and others (1994 CLC 927), (x) Jameel Ahmed v. Muhammad Ishaque (1989 MLD 3571), (xi) Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Yaqub (1986 CLC 2550), (xii) National Development Finance Corporation, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e- Azam, Lahore (PLD 1997 SC 564 and (xiii) Khawaja Imran Ahmad v. Noor Ahmad and another (1992 SCM R 1152) in support of his case.
10. ' The only point for my determination in this case is whether the respondents have been able to prove their requirement in good faith in respect of the shop premises.
11. The respondents in the eviction application have stated about their personal requirement for Shabbir Hussain the son of the original landlady who was said to be jobless for the purpose of carrying out his own business which statement has been reiterated in the affidavit-in-evidence of Shabbir Hussain and whose testimony in the cross could not be shaken. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the respondents were in possession of other suitable premises so as to enable him to carry out their business. No reliable evidence has been brought by the appellants to prove that the said respondent Shabbir Hussain was presently running his business in S.H.
12. Enterprises. If the said assertion of the appellants was correct then he could have conveniently examined any person running his business adjacent to the shop in dispute to show that the adjacent shop was being run by the said respondent Shabbir Husssain, therefore, it could safely be said that the appellants have failed to bring any reliable evidence that the said respondent was having any other shop suitable for his need so as to disentitle him to the eviction of the appellants from the shop premises. Mere fact that alleged enhanced rate was demanded would not negate the entitlement of the said respondent to seek eviction of the shop premises from the appellants.
13. The need of the respondents for Shabbir Hussain is in good faith as nothing has been brought on record to show that it was not an honest requirement.
14. ' In view of aforesaid evidence, reasoning's and case law I find no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant consequently no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Rent Controller, therefore, this appeal is dismissed. However, three month's period is given to the appellants to vacate the premises subject to deposit of rent.
15. ' These are the reasons of short order passed on 26-10-1998.