SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, dated 10-7-1996, passed in F.R.As. No,195 and 225 of 1995.
2. On 11-4-1994 appellants filed Rent Application No,537 of 1994 against respondent/United Bank Limited for eviction from the premises No,G-5, constructed on Plot bearing Survey No,37, Street No,M.R-1, Market Quarters, Marriot Road, Karachi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and their personal bona fide requirement. Respondent is the tenant in said premises since 4th September, 1991 at monthly rent of Rs,15,000 in addition to other charges. Appellants purchased said premises through registered sale deed dated 24-12-1992. The respondent/tenant had paid rent to the previous owner up to December, 1993. Landlords/appellants served a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) upon the respondent/Bank informing them about change of ownership and to vacate the premises as the same were required by appellants Muhammad Aziz Khan and Muhammad Fahim Khan for their personal bona fide use. Notice was duly served upon the respondent/Bank but they refused to vacate it. Instead of paying rent to the appellants/landlords from 1st January, 1994, the Bank without any justification deposited the same in the Court.
3. Case of the respondent/Bank is that they are tenants in the said premises for the last 25 years and that a registered lease deed was executed by the then landlord in its favour for five years, which was valid till 31-12-1995, as such, when the eviction application was filed it was premature. It is also their case that according to the agreement, it is within their option to apply for renewal of tenancy for further period on terms and conditions to be mutually settled by the parties.
4. Learned Rent Controller, vide judgment dated 26-2-1995, allowed ejectment on the ground of personal requirement while the issue of default in payment of rent was decided against the appellants. The respondent/Bank filed appeal against order of ejectment in favour of the appellants on the ground of personal requirement, whereas the appellants filed F.R.A. No,225 of 1.995 against the above order whereby issue of default was decided against them.
5. Both the F.R.As. were decided together. Respondent's F.R.A. was allowed on the ground that in view of the judgment in Mrs. Zehra Begum v. Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited PLD 1984 SC 38 and the judgment of the High Court of Sindh in the case of Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited v. Khalil Ahmad and another 1988 MLD Karachi 210, observing that the appellants had no cause of action for filing ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement, because the lease for five years was subsisting in April, 1994, when the rent application was filed. F.R.A.
No,225 of 1995 was however dismissed and the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller with regard to default was affirmed.
6. Vide order dated 13-11-1997, leave to appeal was granted and its relevant paragraph reads as under:-- "4. We would not like to go into the question, as to whether the respondent/caveator had exercised option to get the above lease renewed for another period of five years because this aspect was not agitated by the parties before the two Courts below.
However, we are inclined to grant leave to consider, as to whether in view of the fact that the lease period had expired on 31-12-1995, the finding on the question of personal requirement could have been reversed by the learned Judge in Chambers on the grounds found favour with him keeping in view of the terms of the lease. Leave is, accordingly, granted."
7. Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for appellants, has vehemently contended that on 3-3-1996 when the High Court had reversed the finding of the Rent Controller, admittedly the lease period had expired, therefore, finding of the Rent Controller could not have been reversed. He further submitted that the learned Judge in Chambers failed to appreciate that there is no restriction under the Ordinance restricting the right of landlord to initiate proceedings for ejectment of the tenant before the expiry of the period reserved under the lease agreement; that the learned High Court failed to appreciate that for the purpose of requirement of the premises for personal bona fide need, the landlord is only required to establish his bona fides, which was not disputed by the respondents before the learned High Court while arguing the appeal; and that the learned Judge in Chambers also failed to consider that any lease agreement contrary to the statute is invalid to the extent of such inconsistency. In support of his contentions he has relied on Mst. Amina Begum v. Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220, Fazal Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafi 1983 CLC 261 and Khuda Bux v.
Muhammad Anwar 1982 CLC 1006.
8. On the contrary, Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate- on-Record for respondents supported the impugned judgment and pointed out that the circumstances relating to expiry of the lease deed, in any case, does not operate as serious hurdle for the tenant; that the respondent/Bank is managed and controlled by the Federal Government; and that it could be very difficult for the respondent to close the Banking operations in the locality.
He has relied on Zehra Begum v. Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. PLD 1984 SC 38.
9. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record as well as the case-law. Learned Rent Controller rightly ordered ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question on the ground of personal bona fide need. It may be pertinent to refer to the cross-examination of the attorney of the appellants (available at pages 29-30 of the paper book), which reads as under:-- "I cannot say whether applicants Aziz Khan and Fahim Khan require the property in question in good faith for running their business. It is not in my knowledge that they were doing business at Sukkur and closed their business at Sukkur and wanted to establish at Karachi. It is correct that they have mentioned the residential address. I do not know whether both the applicants have any other place to run their business office except the premises in dispute. I cannot say whether applicants are entitled to eject the opponents as per law.
Opponents will have no objection if applicants want to run their business in the premises in question."
10. Learned High Court reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on extraneous considerations, which were based on proper appreciation of the evidence and law. The contention of learned A.O.R. for the respondent that expiry of the lease deed, in any case, does not come in the way of the tenant, is not tenable for the reason that the extension of lease is always contingent upon the consent of the landlord and such period cannot be extended unilaterally. Mst. Zehra Begum (supra) does not contemplate a perpetual lease in favour of tenant without the consent of the landlord. Case-law cited by him is distinguishable in the facts of the case in hand, whereas the precedents cited by learned counsel for appellants fully support his case. The appellants are in litigation since 1994; they intend to commence their business and they have fully proved their bona fide need in good faith. They cannot be denied their right of occupation of the demised premises.
The plea that respondent is a bank managed and controlled by the Government, is not a valid ground, because this Court is bound to do complete justice in the matter, as required under Article 187 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. For the foregoing reasons, facts and circumstances, we accept this appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Order by the Rent Controller is accordingly restored