SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.- These appeals by leave of this Court sailing in question the judgment, dated 24.8,1999, passed in FRA No 195/96 etc., delivered by the High Court of Sindh Karachi, will be disposed of through this common judgment because identical questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent is an Insurance Company. Its registered office is situated at Quetta and Head Office at Karachi, It has 10 Regional Offices, 10 Zonal Offices and 93 branches all over the' country. The respondent-company in a Court auction had purchased the building known as Zeenat Mansion (renamed as Khan Mansion) situate at I.I. Chundrigar Road.
Karachi, for use and occupation of its Head Office and Zonal Office South. Before purchasing the said building the Board of Directors of the company had passed a resolution dated 10.5.1990 to the effect that an offer be made in Ex-Application No. 9/83 in the High Court of Sindh for the purchase of said building for use and occupation of Head Office and Zonal Office South. Presently the Head Office and Zonal Office South of the respondent-company are situated in a rented premises at Qamar House Karachi The aforesaid rented premises are not sufficient for the respondent's need.
According to para 8 of the Affidavit-in-Evidence of the Managing Director of the respondent, the company required more accommodation. Therefore, vide notice dated 30.3.1991 the respondent- company informed it's tenants/appellants that it had purchased the. Said building for its use and occupation and demanded from them to vacate and hand-over physical possession of the premises in their occupation. Since the tenants/appellants failed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises, the respondent-company filed rent , applications for eviction of the appellants on the ground of personal bona fide need. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the learned Rent Controller passed the orders for ejectment of the appellants from the disputed premises vide judgment dated 25.4.1996.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed separate appeals before the learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi Vide judgment dated 24.8.1999 the learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissed the appeals directing the appellants to vacate the premises in dispute in their respective possession within for months.
4. On 23.12.1999 leave to appeal was granted to examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel in the following paragraphs:-- "We have heard Messrs Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, Niaz Ahmed Khan, Habib-ur-Rehman, 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 informations 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 requirements; that the eviction of such large number of tenants at the same time was not justified in law."
5. Learned counsel tor the appellants, inter alia, reiterated before us the arguments which they had raised before the learned High Court that the respondent had failed to establish its bona fide need, 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; that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings the respondent- company purchased another building in the Clifton area of Karachi; that the eviction of such large number of tenants at the same time was not justified in law. That the respondent's claim that it had purchased the building in dispute for its personal use is tainted with malice and ought to have been rejected; that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the degree of proof in cases of personal use for additional accommodation is greater than in the cases of personal need; that in case of additional accommodation the landlord has to establish as to why the accommodation already in his occupation is not sufficient and to what extent additional accommodation is required; that this aspect of the controversy was ignored by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned High Court; and lastly that the learned Single Judge erred in granting eviction from the shops in the absence of any evidence on record.
"6. On the other hand, Mr. Najamul Hassan Kazim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, inter alia, contended that the respondent had purchased the building for personal use and has the right to occupy its own building with ease, convenience, comfort and free from hardship and the appellants/tenants have not right to object to the same. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has cited Messrs Tiger Wire- Product Ltd. v. S. Abrar Hussain (1983 SCMR 402), Abdul Razzaq and others v. Muhammad Aslam and others (1995 SCMR 201), Rajah Ali v.
Darius B. Kandawalla and another (PLD 1984 Karachi 14), Sabu Mai v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das (1973 SCMR 185), Pirzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman (1980 SCMR 772), M/s. F.K. Irani and Co., v. Begum Feroze (NLR 1996 Civil 499), Muhammad Shoaib Alam v. Muhammad Iqbal (2000 SCMR 903) = (KLR 2000 SC 192), Ishratullah Siddiqui v Alibhoy (1996 SCMR 1833), Unisam Enterprises v. Bank of Punjab (1999 SCMR 1119). And Mehdi Hasir Rizvi v. Muhammad Usman Siddiqui (2000 SCMR 1613).
7. Learned counsel for the respondent finally stated at the bar that the demised premises will be used by the respondent for its personal bona fide use only and will not be rented out to any other tenant; and that in case of violation of this undertaking, the respondent will be liable for penal action, as provided under the law, or any other order by this Court as it may deem fit and proper will be carried out by the respondent.
8. We have considered the arguments addressed at the bar on behalf of the parties and have also minutely examined the record. We have no hesitation to say that neither there is any inconsistency between the pleadings and evidence of the respondent, nor the testimony of its witnesses has been shaken in the cross examination. So far as the evidence of the appellants is concerned there is no rebuttal whatsoever to disprove the case of the respondent. In our considered opinion, the respondent has proved its bona fides for personal use.
9. We have also minutely perused the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chambers, who has considered and discussed the every aspect of the case of the parties and has based his judgment on the principles enunciated by this Court in the above-referred plethora of cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the demised premises was purchased by the respondent in an open auction in execution proceedings before the learned High Court of Sindh with the sole purpose tor its bona fide personal use by establishing its offices therein. The pleadings and evidence furnished by the respondent was trustworthy. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Judge in High Court found that the property in question is required by the respondent for its personal bona fide need. We also do not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgments of the two Courts below. The respondent has proved its bona fide for personal use of the demised premises before the learned Rent Controller which was affirmed by the learned High Court. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent fully supports the case of the respondent.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is "that these appeals are without any substance, which must fail, and the same are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that the appellants are running their business in the demised premises and one-year time may be granted to them, so that they may hand-over the vacant possession to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to this proposal.
12. We accordingly grant one-year time to the appellants from today and direct them to hand-over peaceful and vacant possession of the property in dispute to the respondent. After the expiry of the said period, if the appellants do not vacate and hand-over the possession of the demised premises to the respondent, they shall be ejected through writ of possession with police aid, if necessary. However, the appellants shall pay rent to the respondent regularly.