' Present petition calls in question the concurrent decisions recorded by the VIIth Rent Controller and IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi (South). The former dismissed the rent case filed by the petitioner for eviction of respondent No.1 on the ground of personal need, by judgment dated 29-5- 2002 and the latter dismissed appeal against that judgment on 7-11-2002.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Famous Art Printer (Pvt.) Ltd. Is tenant of petitioner Mst. Shirin Bai (hereinafter referred to as "the landlady/petitioner") in respect of two shops on the ground floor of her building on plot bearing No.23, SR-10, Old Survey No.34, Sheet No.B-14 at Pakistan Chowk, Karachi, Dr. Ziauddin Road (hereinafter called as "the premises"). One of the shops was let out to the tenant in 1957 whereas the other one was given to it in 1982. After that, with the express permit ion of the landlady, an extensive renovation of the premises was carried out by the tenant.
3. In March, 2000 there had been a row between the parties over the payment of water charges by the tenant and the landlady through her Advocate, served him with a notice requiring him to make payment of the charge. The tenant made payment through pay order dated 3-3-2001. During the same month the landlady, filed rent case No.640 of 2001 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. She pleaded that her two sons Fakhuruddin and Shabir who were running computer institute in the rented premises at North Nazimabad wanted to shift their business to the premises.
4. The tenant/respondent No.1 filed written statement asserting therein that the ground of personal requirement is not a bona fide one. Elaborating the assertion it stated further that North Nazimabad, where the Cybergen Systems is being run, is an ideal vicinity for the computer business. In that vicinity so many computer related firms/institutions, cyber cafes and markets are available besides many prestigious educational institutions. Thus the plea of shifting of an established business from that environment to the premises surrounded by noisy printing presses where no computer related firm or institution is available, is not acceptable.
5. After framing the issues and recording the evidence the Rent Controller dismissed the rent case.
The appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi (South).
6. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner contended that the learned two Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on the question of personal requirement in accordance with the principle of appreciation of the evidence laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Messrs F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCM R 1178, wherein the rule was laid down that the evidence on the side of landlord when consistent with the pleadings on the question of personal requirement has to be accepted unless demolished by the other side. Elaborating his contention the learned Advocate argued that in present case Mst, Shirin Bai, the landlady, had expressly pleaded in her rent case that her two sons want to shift their Cybergen Systems from the rented premises at North Nazimabad to the premises and also .Deposed same facts before the Court therefore her version was to be accepted. The learned Advocate further contended that the two Courts below ignored the well-recognized prerogative of the landlady to take decision about the suitability of the premises for the business to be started therein and took upon themselves to take decision about the suitability of the premises for the business i.e. Cybergen Systems which is against the settled law. According to the learned Advocate the evidence of the landlady and her sons had to be accepted on the questions of suitability of the premises for their business and need for using it personally.
7. Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1 defended the impugned decision arguing that the law does not consider mere ipsi dixit of landlady that she requires the premises in good faith. She was required to give valid and reasonable justification of the requirement. According to him, the learned two Courts below validly exercised their jurisdiction by examining the evidence and recording the finding on the bona fide character of the need. In support of his contention the learned Advocate referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Iqbal Book Depot and others v. Khatib Ahmed and 6 others 2001 SCM R 1197. The learned Advocate further contended that the concurrent findings of the learned two Courts below appreciating the evidence of the parties on the fact of personal requirement cannot be interfered within exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. It is true that the landlady has the prerogative of choosing any of her premises for personal use.
It is also fact that the evidence of the landlady on the question of personal requirement if consistent with the pleadings has to be believed provided the same has not been shaken in the cross-examination. But the prerogative of the landlady and her evidence relating to her personal need has to be reasonable and convincing. Thus the Court is fully competent to examine the evidence on the side of landlady on the question of need and selection of the premises on the touchstone of reasonableness. In the cases of shifting the business the principle of reasonableness is fully applicable. In those cases it is to be seen as to whether the premises where an established business is to be shifted are relatively preferable and suitable. That is the ratio in both of the pronouncements referred to by the parties' counsel.
9. Present is the case where hardly two years before filing of the rent case the two sons of the landlady selected Block-F of North Nazimabad for starting their Computer Institute. Their considered decision in that respect leads to the natural inference that they preferred that vicinity over the premises in question. The evidence on record proves that after starting the business they establish it. Nothing such has come on record which could indicate that, the start of the business and establishment thereof were all temporary and had to be shifted to the premises. Nor is anything in the evidence that environment at North Nazimabad were no more suitable for the business.
10. In the light of above discussed aspects the plea of shifting the business is neither convincing nor rational and reasonable. The two Courts below have considered the material on record and drawn right conclusion. Their decisions do not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal deficiency. The petition is dismissed being meritless, with no order as to cost.