1. ' This appeal is directed against the order dated 28-5-1994 passed by learned IInd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi (Central) in Rent Case No,810 of 1989 allowing the ejectment application and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in his possession to respondent.
2. ' The facts leading to this appeal are that appellant is tenant of premises situated on Plot No,19/2, Commercial Area, Liaquatabad, Karachi. It is the case of the respondent that her mother in the year 1967 rented out the said premises to appellant and during her lifetime she requested the appellant to vacate the premises but he failed to do the needful. After the death of her mother the respondent informed the appellant about change of ownership vide notice, dated 2-7-1987 and asked the appellant to vacate the premises as she required the same for her personal use because she is a self-supporting lady and is a commercial artist and also beautician. She is earning her livelihood by working as commercial artist and beautician; to start her business as a commercial artist as well as beautician. She also wants to reside with her three children as there is no accommodation of her own.
3. ' Appellant filed his written statement and has challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the respondent did not show him original title documents. The ejectment application has been filed with mala fide intention as the premises in question is situated in commercial area which is not suitable for her business. The only purpose for which rent case filed to let out the same on higher rent and there is no personal need of the respondent.
4. ' The learned Controller framed the following issues:
(i) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant has been existed between the parties?
(ii) Whether she requires the premises for her personal bona fide use?
(iii) What should the order be?
5. ' In support of her case the applicant examined herself and produced title documents. She was cross-examined by appellant's counsel. The appellant/opponent filed his affidavit-inevidence and he was cross-examined by respondent's counsel, after hearing the parties the learned Controller allowed the rent case.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent at length and have also perused the record. It is contended by counsel for appellant that the rent case was filed by respondent with mala fide intention as the premises in question is situated in commercial area and which is not suitable for the business of respondent as beautician. He has further contended that the learned Controller has failed to evaluate the evidence on record correctly.
7. On the point of relation hip of landlord and tenant between the parties, it is pertinent to note that the respondent/landlord has produced title documents of the property and also rent agreement entered into between her and appellant. The findings of learned Controller on this point does not call for any interference as she has given detailed reasons for the same.
8. ' On the ground of personal need of the respondent the appellant has only taken the plea that the premises in dispute is situated in commercial area and respondent being a .Lady cannot start her own business. The respondent's pleadings are consistent as stated by her in the application as well as affidavit, that she requires the premises for personal use to start her own business. Even the premises is surrounded by Timber Market even then the opening of any other business in the area itself should not be a negative factor. By inference it would mean that a doctor or a lawyer also cannot do their business which is not meant for their business purpose. The respondent herself is living in the premises and the premises in dispute is most suitable for her to start her business and look after the same and her children as well. The findings on learned Controller on this point also does not call for any interference. On this point I am fortified with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Saira Bai v. Anisur Rahman 1989 SCM R 1366.
9. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is granted sixty (60) days' time to vacate and hand over the premises to respondent.