1. ' This F.R.A. Was fixed for Katcha Peshi and by consent of both the learned, counsel was heard finally as a short point is involved viz; whether the rented premises are required by the respondent in good faith and for personal bona fide use.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that admittedly the appellant is a tenant of the respondent by virtue of Agreement, dated 1-4-1998 which was for a period of 11 months. Before expiry of the tenancy a legal notice was served upon the appellant on 2-3-1999 by the respondent to the effect that since the premises were required for personal bona fide use, the appellant should vacate the same. To this notice a reply was sent on 9-3-1999 denying the personal bona fide use of the respondent.
3. Therefore, the respondent filed R.C. No,434 of 1999 before the learned WI-Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East, for eviction of the appellant from the rented premises. The matter was contested by the appellant who denied the ground of bona fide use. The parties filed their affidavit-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined where after the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Rent Controller allowing the eviction application and directing the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 60 days from the date of the order, dated 22-3-2000. Hence the Appeal.
4. ' Mr. Gul Malik, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, stressed that a mere bald statement by the respondent/ landlord to the effect that the rented premises are needed for bona fide personal use by him to start his own business is not a sufficient ground to satisfy such need.
5. Learned counsel also submitted that some evidence should have been forthcoming by way of details of the business which is to be set up in order to satisfy this Court or the trial Court that the rented premises are needed for bona fide personal use by the respondent which the latter has failed to adduce. Learned counsel relied upon the following case-law in support of his submissions:
(1) Akhlaq-un-Nabi v. Nawab Ahmad Shamsi 1986 CLC 1100 and (2) Walumal v. Muhammad Moosa 1986 CLC 1831.
6. ' On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Azad, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that per the settled law by the Supreme Court a mere statement on oath by the landlord that the rented premises are required by him in good faith is enough to warrant the ejectment of the tenant under section 15 (vii) of the Sindh rented premises Ordinance, 1979. Learned counsel further submitted that thereafter burden shifts upon the tenant to establish otherwise viz the mala fides of the landlord. He referred to the cross-examination of both the respondent as well as the appellant and submitted that as far as the respondent/landlord is concerned his statement that the rented premises were required for bona fide personal use and in goodfaith by himself to start his business would not be shaken. Learned counsel submitted that as regards the cross-examination of the appellant and his witness is concerned both have admitted that the rented premises are located in a good commercial area of P.E.C.1-1.S. And suitable for the purpose of starting any business. So also it has been admitted by both these witnesses that the shop in question is the only shop in the premises and the landlord resides in one portion of the same. Learned counsel further submitted that the landlord/respondent's assertion on oath that he owns no other property in the city of Karachi has gone unrebutted. Consequently in view of the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence on record learned counsel submitted that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Rent Controller. In support of his contentions he has raised upon the following case-law;
(1) Qamaruddin v. Hakim Mahmod Khan 1988 SCM R 819; (2) Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman 1980 SCM R 772 and (3) Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Shafi 1989 SCM R 538.
7. I have heard both the learned counsel. It is settled law that in order to satisfy the provisions of section 15 (vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the landlord has to establish before the Rent Controller that where he seeks ejectment for his personal bona fide use, such need should be genuine and not tainted with mala fides.
8. ' For this proposition of law reference can be made to Khawaja Imran Ahmed v. Noor Ahmed and another (1992 SCM R 1152), S.M. Nooruddin and 9 others v. Saga Printers (1998 SCM R 2119) and Messrs. F.K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze (1996 SCM R 1178). Similarly the foregoing cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also establish that the landlord does not have to give any description or particulars as to the business which he proposes to start in the rented premises. From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record I am satisfied that the respondent/lanlord's assertion for his own personal use has gone unrebutted. So also it has come on record that the rented premises are located in a good commercial area which is ideal and suitable for starting any business. In my opinion therefore, in view of the settled-law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court per the authorities cited infra the landlord/respondent not need give any details of the business which! He proposes to start in the rented premises.
9. Consequently I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment which I uphold. The F.R.A. Is dismissed and the appellant/ tenant is directed to vacate the rented premises within a period of three months from today failing which the respondent/ landlord would have the right to file execution proceedings and obtain order of eviction/writ of possession without notice to the tenant/appellant.
10. ' The F.R.A. Stands dispensed of accordingly.