ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.S-1112 of 2017

Swami Narayan Temple Trust Karachi

Versus

Mst. Paroo & others

Date	Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of main case

Date of hearing: 21.05.2018

Mr. Neel Keshav for petitioner.

Mr. Muqeem Alam for respondent.

-.-.-

Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J.- This petition is against the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The eviction application, amongst several grounds, also included ground of personal requirement.

Primarily and substantially the petitioner’s counsel has urged ground of personal requirement. It is contended that the petitioner/ applicant is not under any obligation to state the nature of business or kind of material required to be stored in the demised premises. It is only to be seen whether the premises was required bonafidely and that an honest statement was given. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-evidence the authorized manager of the applicant has stated that the premises was required in good faith for personal use for a store room.

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

I have also perused the cross-examination of the petitioner/ applicant and though the witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but no question as to personal requirement was made. In fact the statement on oath as to the requirement of premises bonafidely has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. There was no reason or material available before the Rent Controller or appellate Court to form a view other than that the premises was required in good faith as there was no evidence available on record to the contrary. Apparently this is a case of misreading and non-reading of the evidence. The statement made in the affidavit-in-evidence is in consonance with the statement made in the ejectment application and unless proved otherwise by the respondent/tenant, it ought to be believed.

Reliance is placed on the case of F.K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze reported in 1996 SCMR 1178 and in the case of Iqbal Book Depot v. Khatib Ahmed reported in 2001 SCMR 1197 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in detail discussed the aspect of an honest statement and/or personal requirement in good faith. The observations in the cited judgments fortify the claim of the petitioner/applicant in the instant case as no details of the business are required to be provided by the landlord i.e. petitioner herein.

The judgment of the two courts below are not based on the evidence available on record and as such on this count alone as other grounds have not been urged by petitioner’s counsel as he is of the view that in case petitioner succeeds in one ground he would not press others.

In view of the above I allow this petition and set aside the impugned order/judgments of the two Courts below, resultantly the eviction application is allowed on the ground of personal requirement only. However, the respondent is given sixty days’ time to vacate the demised premises subject to payment of rent on/or before 10^th of each calendar month and all other charges, payable under the law and agreement, if any.

Judge