NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C J.--- This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 11-4-1997 delivered in RFA No,506 of 1991 whereby said appeal preferred by appellants was dismissed and the judgment of Rent Controller dated 28-8-1991 was maintained.
2. In 1989 the appellants filed rent application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979, (the Rent Ordinance), against the respondents for their eviction from the premises bearing No,PP-2. Survey Sheet No,35-P/1, measuring 772 square yards, situated in Blocks 7 & 8 of the Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies' Union Ltd, Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi (the premises on the grounds of personal requirement and subletting. It was alleged therein that respondent No,1 was the tenant and respondent No,2 was Sublette of the premises. It was stated that the premises were required by the appellants Nos.1, 3. & 4 for business purposes and for residential purposes of two sons of appellant No,1 (Imran & Asif) and one son of appellant No,2 (Shahid). The respondents.In their written statement, challenged the maintainability of the eviction application on the ground that though it was filed by appellants Nos.1 to 8, but it was signed and verified only by appellant No,3 without any authority of other appellants. Further, it was alleged that the appellants had taken ground of construction of building, but had not filed necessary sanction for such construction from competent authority. Respondent No,2 Rafiq Ahmed Chand, in his written statement, stated that he was a dealer of respondent No,1 and not a sub-tenant. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck by learned Rent Controller:-
(1) Whether the application is not maintainable under the provisions of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
(2) Whether the applicants require the demised premises for their personal bona fide need?
(3) Whether the opponent No,1 has sublet the demised premises to opponent No,2 without consent of the applicants?
(4) What should the order be?
3. On assessm ent of evidence brought on record, learned Rent. Controller dismissed the eviction application. Being dissatisfied, the appellants preferred appeal before High Court, which met the same fate. Before High Court issue No,1 was not pressed and findings recorded by Rent Controller on issues Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the respondents were maintained.
4.Vide order dated' 2-1-1998 'leave to appeal, was granted to consider whether High Court was right in holding that a case for eviction on the ground of personal requirement was not made out, as the precise business for which the premises were required had not been disclosed in the eviction application and the premises being a petrol pump site, a commercial/residential building thereon could not be constructed.
5. Learned High Court reached the conclusion that unless the appellants established with tangible evidence that the premises were needed for the purpose stated in the application, the eviction could not be granted. It also reached the conclusion that the lease of the premises to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was granted only for petrol pump and unless the concerned authorities allowed modification for its use, the appellants could not use it for any other purpose.
6. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that both learned Rent Controller and High Court fell into error of non-reading and misreading the evidence on record, which clearly established that personal bona fide need of the appellants was established by irrefutable evidence, yet. The eviction application was dismissed on flimsy grounds. It is urged that the appellants have no other property except the premises in question. Learned counsel further submitted that though learned Single Judge observed that the landlord is not required to state the nature of business which he intends to start, yet went on to hold that nothing prevented the appellants to mentioned the nature of their business in order to establish good faith. Learned counsel also questioned the finding of High Court that since the appellants failed to establish need for residential use. Eviction could not be granted for commercial use. Learned counsel also vehemently impugned the finding of High Court that Without obtaining prior approval from Concerned authorities for conversion of the premises from commercial into commercial-cum-residential one, eviction from a petrol pump.
Site could not be ordered.
7. As against above, learned counsel appearing for the respondentssubmitted that the impugned judgment is perfectly in accordance with law and no interference is warranted.
8. Appellant Muhammad Younas in his affidavit-in-evidence clearly stated that he was also attorney of the remaining appellants. It has been specifically mentioned by him in his affidavit.
Which has not been controverted. That the plot in question was let out to M/s.. Esso Standard Eastern Co. For a period 10 years on 4-2-1969 with an option to further extend the period of 10 years for establishing petrol pump and both above terms expired on 14-1-1989. Further, the affidavit discloses that after promulgation of the Act No,LXXIX of 1976, respondent No,1 stepped into the shoes of said M/s. Esso Standard Eastern Co. And became a statutory tenant in respect of the premises with binding of all the terms and conditions as stipulated in the lease deed and also the provisions of the Rent Ordinance.
9. It is evident from record that the appellants by their letter dated 16-8-1988 declined to further extend the period of lease and thus clearly demonstrated that they needed the premises for their own use. The requirements of the appellants, by passage of time. Have multiplied. Their minor children have become major and now they all want to utilize the premises for their benefit. Nothing is wrong in their demand. Which to say the least. Is absolutely justified. The appellants do not have any property except the premises in question. After 4-1-1989 the respondents continued to occupy the premises. Although the lease period had already expired. Their possession over the premises now is over 35 years. Superior right is of the appellants to use their property and they cannot be deprived of it merely on technical grounds. It is not the requirement of law that the owner of the property. As a rule. Must disclose the nature of the business he intends to establish over his premises nor so can conveniently be done. It all depends upon the circumstances. Which change from time to time. It is significant to note that at the time the plot was leased out to the respondents. It was open. The issue of raising of construction thereon would arise only after its vacant possession is handed over to the appellants. It is for the relevant authorities to determine that in what capacity they permit the appellants to utilize the premises. The respondents have no legal right to assert that the premises could only be utilized in the manner they visualized. It is beyond their power and authority. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the Pakistan Petroleum Refining (Refining. Blending and Marketing) Rules 1971. The appellants are not entitled to run petrol pump business should they decide to do so. Suffice it to say that right of the appellants to do the business according to their requirements cannot be gauged on the perception of the respondents. They will themselves determine in what way subject to law. They want to utilize their property.
10. On 15-4-20(14 by a short order. We had allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and directed the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the appellants within six months from said date with an observation that in case the possession was not handed over to the appellants as above, the writ of possession shall be issued against the respondents without notice to them.
11. Above are the detailed reasons for the order dated 15-4-2004.