SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.-- By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 991 and 992 of 1999, which are directed against a consolidated judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 21.12.1998, passed in F.R.A. No. 529 and 530 of 1998.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mst. Karima Bai (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) is a tenant of Mst. Hawa Bai (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) in respect of two shops Nos. 19 and 20 in the building known as Mullani Manzil, situated on Plot o. LR-4, Survey No. 1/1, Ireland Road, Off. Nishter Road, Karachi, for quite sometime and is running iron and steel business therein. The landlady instituted two separate rent applications for the eviction of the tenant from the aforesaid shops on the ground that shop No. 19 was required by her for the use and occupation of her husband Abdul Karim and shop No. 20 for use and occupation of her son Muhammad Asif. Both the rent applications were allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 20.10.1993.
3. The aforesaid order of the Rent. Controller was challenged through separate appeals, bearing FRA No. 529/1993 and 530/1993. Both the appeals were disposed of by a learned Judge in Chambers vide common judgment dated 21.12.1998, whereby FRA No. 530/1993 was dismissed, while FRA No. 529/1993 was allowed on the ground that, as the eviction of the tenant from shop No. 19 was sought for the benefit of landlady's husband, who, during - the pendency of the appeal had expired, therefore, such ground was no longer sustainable.
Hence, these appeals.
4. Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, learned ASC for the tenant, inter alia, contended that the landlady miserably failed to establish that the demised premises are required in good faith and her mere desire is not sufficient to justify the eviction of the tenant; that the Courts below did not consider the matter in its proper perspective; that Muhammad Asif s/o landlady, in whose favour the ejectment order had been passed, already owns another shop, which is suitable for his requirement and the ejectment order is not maintainable.
5. Mr. A.I Akbar, learned AOR for the landlady, inter alia, contended that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not correctly interpreted the factual as well as legal position by observing that on account of the death of abdul Karim, the husband of landlady, during the pendency of the appeal, ejectment order is not sustainable; that once ejectment order is passed it survives irrespective of death of person for whose benefit in personal bona fide need the demised property is required; that the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate the case-law i.e. Muhammad Aslam v. Wazir Muhammad (PLD 1985 S.C. 46), unreported judgments viz. C.P. No. K-408/1995, Muhammad Ameen and others v. Syed Sarfraz Hussain and others (C.P. K880/1990, Anwar A.I and others v. M/s. Habib Bank Ltd. And Ibrahim v. Rehmatullah (1985 SCM R 241), and that the impugned judgment is not maintainable.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the material available on record. The landlady in his ejectment application has clearly mentioned that Shop No. 19 is required for personal bona fide need of her husband Abdul Karim, who had to carry on his business and Shop No. 20 is required for the bona fide personal need of her son Muhammad Asif, who also intends to start his business. The bona fide personal need of the husband and son is clearly mentioned in the eviction applications in unequivocal terms; affidavits in support of the applications were also filed and nothing was brought in cross- examination so that the evidence could be rebutted and shaken, which has gone unchallenged.
During the pendency of the appeal unfortunately Abdul Karim, husband of the landlady died, for which shop No. 19 as required and the learned Judge considering all the aspects of the case rightly held that since the shop was required for the personal need of Abdul Karim deceased is no more available to the landlady, whereas through pleadings and evidence the landlady proved that Shop No. 20 is required for the personal bona fide need of her son for carrying on his business. The learned Single Judge in Chambers has considered the entire material available with him and also the cases decided by this Court referred to hereinabove, therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the impugned judgment is based on the proper appreciation of the law laid down by this Court and the same is correctly interpreted, which does not require any interference by us at this stage. The learned High Court has rightly held that Shop No. 19 was to be used by the landlady's husband; neither in the application nor in evidence the landlady ever stated or desired that she herself intends to start her business. Shop No. 19 was specifically required for the personal need of the landlady's husband, who unfortunately expired, as such, need of her husband is abated and is no more available; so far as Shop No. 20 is concerned, the landlady proved her bona fide personal need for her son through tangible and reliable evidence, which was rightly believed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment.
7. In our considered view, there is no misreading or non -reading of material evidence. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned, which is not open to exception. We do not find any merit and substance in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.