By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, order dated 13-9-1994, passed by Rent Controller/1 st Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah in R.A. No,17 of 1992, whereby allowing the rent application filed by respondent No,1, and the other order dated 15-1- 2003, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, whereby dismissing Rent Appeal No,6 of 2001, have been impugned by the petitioners.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are tenant of respondent No,1 in respect of rented shop bearing L.S.No,81/3, Ward-A, Nawabshah for which respondent No,I had filed ejectment application on 4-7-1992 on the sole ground of his personal bone fide need. The matter was proceeded before the Rent Controller in accordance with law wherein both the parties were afforded proper opportunity to prove their respective case. Eventually the Rent Controller recorded his finding on the plea of personal bona fide use raised by respondent No,1 in the affirmative and ordered ejectment of petitioners. In appeal, the Appellate Court also concurred with such view and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.
3. Mr. Mansoorul Haq Ansari vehemently argued that the respondent No,1 at the time of filing Rent Application had categorically stated that he was without job therefore the rented shop was required for his personal bona fide use and same was his case at the time of filing of his affidavit- in-evidence. But at the stage of cross-examination he conceded that he was working in the Post Office at Nawabshah as peon, though temporarily. In the same context he also referred to the evidence of witness Rashid Muhammad, from the Office of Post Master, Nawabshah, who stated that respondent No,1 was in service there for two and half years but during that period he was twice removed from service and even now service of respondent No,1 was temporary and he can be removed at any time. He contended that service of respondent No,1 and such material contradiction in his case disentitles him to ejectment of the petitioners from the rented shop on the ground of his personal bona fide need, but this aspect was overlooked by the two Courts below.
4. I have carefully perused the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the parties specially the evidence referred by the learned counsel arid seen that atter tiling of affidavit-in-evidence by the applicant on 5-10-1992 his cross-examination was conducted on 9-12-1972 and 16-8-1994 wherein he had admitted. About his temporary service as peon from time to time. It may be observed that in case the landlord has filed ejectment application on the ground of his personal bona fide need in respect of some shop it is not expected from him nor it is the spirit of law that till such ejectment application is finally decided, which in the instant case has already consumed more than ten years, he shall sit idle or to maintain status quo to prove his bone fides. It has been clearly stated by the respondent No,1 in his cross-examination and also confirmed by the witness Rashid Muhammad that the service of petitioner in the post office as peon was purely temporary and in the past also twice he was removed from service. In the given circumstances such statement about certain subsequent developments cannot be treated as concealment of facts or inconsistency/contradiction in the case of landlord. Further such temporary engagement of respondent No,I cannot, be taken as his disqualification for seeking eviction of petitioners from the rented shop for his personal bona fide need. This view of the matter is fortified from the case of Fazal Azim and another v. Tariq Mehmood and another PLD 1982 SC 218. In this case the landlord had secured job in foreign country during the pendency of his ejectment application filed on the ground of personal use but it was not accepted by the Apex Court as disqualificaion for the landlord in his pending Rent Case. Relevant observations are reproduced as under: "The admitted fact that respondent No,1 went abroad cannot by itself be considered as showing lack of bona fides. It has been observed in a number of cases that the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement would not sit idle for periods of time during the pendency of eviction proceedings. If during such a period he employs himself in a gainful occupation, that as a general proposition, would not negate the assertion of bona fide on his part."
5. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the alleged tenancy agreement Exh.26 which, according to the learned counsel, contained a clause that respondent No,1/landlord will not be competent to eject the tenant has also no force, firstly for the reasons that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in respect of agreement Exh.26 are against the petitioners and secondly that any condition provided in the rent agreement which is in conflict with the statutory provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 or against public policy is void and cannot be enforced through or defended before any Court of Law. To add force to his submissions Mr. Mansooul Haq Ansari placed reliance upon the case of Saifullah v.
Muhammad Bux and 2 others 2003 M LD 480 but the ratio of, this case also does not help the case of petitioners in any manner, rather it goes against them.
6. The scope of exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in the matter arising out of the proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was 'examined in the case of Messrs Mehraj (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Miss Laima Saeed and others 2003 M LD 1033, the relevant observations read as under;-- "Besides, the contention of Mr. Lmran Ahmed with regard to the maintainability of this petition has also much substance. In this context it may be observed that by conferring only one right of appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented premises Ordinance. 1979 the Legislature in its wisdom seems to have tried to shorten the span of litigation in rent cases. In such circumstances interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. In the judicial orders passed by the Tribunals. Would not serve any other purpose but would add to the misery of prolonged litigation for the parties and would defeat the spirit and object of the statute. The dictum laid down in the case of Secretary to the Government of the Punjab (supra) also postulates similar view and is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case."
7. I have gone through the two orders impugned in this petition and seen that the same are based on proper assessm ent of evidence led by the parties before the Rent Controller and the dicta laid down by the superior Courts in the context of personal need of the landlord. No case for interference is thus made out in this petition.
8. For the foregoing reasons I find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith pending application.