Shakti Kumar V. Parkash Kumar and another,

PLJ 2024 Quetta 162 Present : IQBAL AHMED KASI, J. SHAKTI KUMAR --Appellant versus PARKASH KUMAR and another --Respondents F.A.O. No. 58 of 2022, decided on 9.5.2023. Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (VI of 1959) -- ----Ss. 13 & 15--Eviction application --Allowed --Rent agreement --Lawful owner --Old construction--Major repairing was required--Personal bona fide need --Appellant was admitted ownership of respondent in a civil suit --Challenge to --The contention of counsel for appellant that Respondent No. 1 was not owner of disputed shop, had no force, for reason that appellant himself filed a civil suit, wherein, he categorically admitted that Respondent No. 1 was landlord of shop in dispute --There was a rent agreement between appellant and Respondent No. 1 and all Aws supported contents of agreement --Respondent No. 1 had sought vacant possession of shop in dispute on basis of personal bonafide need, which was otherwise evident from record-- Appellant could not extract anything substantial in his favour in terms of applicant’s bonafide need, thus, the applicant’s version prevails over the view of appellant in terms of need, besides relationship --Appeal dismissed. [Pp. 165 & 166] A, B & C PLD 2008 SC 554 ref. Mr. Imran Baloch, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Asmatullah Mandokhail , Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3.4.2023. JUDGMENT The instant appeal, under Section 15 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance -VI, 1959 (‘the Ordinance of 1959’) is directed against the order dated 26th September, 2022 (“the impugned order”) of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Hub, (“the trial Court”) passed in eviction application No. 05/2022, whereby, the eviction application filed by the applicant/ Respondent No. 1 was allowed against the appellant/respondent.

2. Brief facts of the instant appeal are that Respondent No. 1/applicant filed eviction application against the appellant/respondent with the averments that he is lawful owner/purchaser of a shop, situated at Sakran Road, Tehsil Hub, District Lasbella (‘the shop in dispute’) and the same was rented out to appellant/respondent against the monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/ -per month, wherein, the appellant/respondent is doing business of confectionery. In this behalf, rent agreement dated 26.03.2021 was also adduce d into writing. The Respondent No. 1/applicant further averred in the eviction application that the shop in dispute is of old construction and damaged by its structure, which requires major repair, on the other hand, the shop in dispute is also required for personal bonafide use and business of Respondent No. 1/applicant.

3. After institution of the application, the trial Court issued notice to the appellant/respondent, in response whereof, the appellant respondent appeared and contested the eviction application of the Respondent No. 1/applicant by filing rejoinder.

4. Out of pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: - “i) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties? ii) Whether the shop in question was needed to applicant for personal bonafide need? iii) Whether applicant is entitled to the relief claimed for? iv) The relief?

5. Thereafter, the trial Court, directed the parties to file affidavits of witnesses, who were subsequently, called in witness box for cross -examination. The applicant/Respondent No. 1 produced AW -1, Molchand, AW -2, Kamlesh Kumar and lastly recorded his own statement, whereas, in rebuttal, the appellant/respondent produced RW -1, Sanaullah, RW -2, Parkash and recorded his own statement.

6. After conclusion of evidence of the parties, the trial Court, heard arguments of the parties and thereafter vide impugned order 26.09.2022 decreed the eviction application in favour of the Respondent No. 1/applicant and directed the appellant/respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to Respondent No. 1/applicant within thirty days and further clear outstanding dues and utility bills, if any, hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for appellant/respondent contended that appellant/respondent from the day first denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, and in this regard the Respondent No. 1/applicant himself admitted in his cross examination that he is not owner of the shop in dispute, but contrary to law, the trial Court, passed the impugned order, which is illegal and unlawful; the trial Court, passed impugned order contrary to law and facts without appreciating the evidence available on record; that during the pendency of eviction application, the Respondent No. 1/applicant filed an application under Section 151, CPC for permission to file amended title of application under Section 13(2) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction, which proved the fact that he is/was not owner of the shop in question then too, the trial Court failed to consider this admission on the part of the Respondent No. 1/applicant; that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is based on misreading and mis -appreciation of evidence available on record, thus, not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/applicant inter alia contended that the appellant/respondent is tenant of Respondent No. 1/applicant and in this behalf written rent agreement was also produced before the trial Court; that prior to the filling of eviction application, the appellant/respondent filed a Civil Suit to prevent him from forcible eviction and in that plaint he had categorically admitted the Respondent No. 1 as landlord, thus, doctrine of estoppels that the trial Court during trial passed order dated 17.05.2022 on application under Order 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and respondent deposited rent in CCD account on the name of Respondent No. 1/applicant and that order was not assailed, which attained finality; that the impugned order and decree is passed after proper appreciation of evidence, hence needs no interference by this Court.

9. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the available record with their able assistance. I am of the anxious thought to the arguments raised at the bar. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant that Respondent No. 1 is not owner of disputed shop, has no force, for the reason that the appellant himself filed a civil suit, wherein, he categorically admitted that the Respondent No. 1 is landlord of the shop in dispute. Moreover, record further reveals that there is a rent agreement between the appellant and Respondent No. 1 and all the Aws supported the contents of the deed/agreement, whereas, both the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross -examination, but their evidence remained un- shattered. It is settled principle of law that in rent cases only relationship of landlord and tenant is to be seen and not the title or the ownership. When relationship of landlord and tenant has been established then there is no need for placing on record ownership documents. To fortified this view reliance is placed to the case titled “Said Rehman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others” PLD 2008 Supreme Court 554, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing to such proposition has held as under: “In rent cases, only relationship of landlord and tenants is to be seen and not the title or ownership. When the relationship of landlord and tenant has been established then there is no need for placing on record ownership documents. The sanction of Municipal Corporation for the proposed reconstruction is also valid ground for maintaining the ownership of landlord as the same cannot be obtained by a stranger.”

10. Apart from above legal proposition, the record further reveals that the Respondent No. 1 has sought vacant possession of the shop in dispute on the basis of personal bonafide need, which is otherwise evident from the record, as admittedly Respondent

No. 1/applicant was running business of pharmacy in the adjacent shop on rent and he now intends to utilize the shop in question to expend the same business and this fact also supports and corroborates the claim of Respondent No. 1/applicant, that he is in personal bonafide need of the shop in dispute, as he is not having any alternate premises to establish or to shift his business. Furthermore, though the Respondent No. 1/applicant may retain the shop rented out by him, but his right to use his own property cannot be denied on mere touchstone that he was having a business adjacent to the rented shop. Appellant /respondent could not extract anything substantial in his favour in terms of Respondent No. 1/applicant’s bonafide need, thus, the Respondent No. 1/applicant’s version prevails over the view of appellant/respondent, in terms of need, besides relationship. For the forgoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the appellant/respondent has failed to make out a case of interference in the impugned order and decree by this Court, thus, the appeal is having no merits is accordingly dismissed. (Y.A.) Appeal dismissed