Promise of marriage (Mangni) which is quite different from actual marriage, has no legal effect under Muslim Law‑‑‑To arrange a `Mangni' before entering into marriage is not a legal requirement.

1990 M L D 792

(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.15(2)(vii)‑‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑‑Desire of landlord to shift to his own premises for living independently, cannot be said to be unreasonable, especially when landlord was residing in premises belong to his relatives etc.

(b) West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑

‑‑‑S.2‑‑‑Marriage‑‑‑Promise of marriage (Mangni) which is quite different from actual marriage, has no legal effect under Muslim Law‑‑‑To arrange a `Mangni' before entering into marriage is not a legal requirement.

(c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.15(2)(vii)‑‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑‑Where after renting out premises family of landlord had expanded, new requirements of landlord, could not be brushed aside‑‑‑Rent Controller, while deciding application for eviction on ground of personal bona fide requirement of landlord, has to look into all genuine requirements including desire of landlord to have an independent and better living.

(d) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVI1 of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.15(2)(vii)‑‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑‑Landlord, has unfettered right to use his own premises in any manner he likes, provided purpose for which premises was to be used, was legal‑‑‑Opening a clinic in premises with a view to earn profit by landlord who was a qualified Doctor, being a genuine cause, apprehension of tenant that landlord being a fresh medical graduate would not fetch sufficient number of patients, was hardly a relevant factor for determination of personal requirement of landlord in respect of premises in dispute.

(e) Words and phrases‑‑

‑‑‑ Word `business'‑‑Scope‑‑‑Word 'business', by itself is very comprehensive and it includes business of a general medical practitioner running a clinic or dispensary.

(f) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.15(2)(vii)‑‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑‑Suitability of premises‑‑ Suitability of premises for purpose of business for which premises was required was concern of the landlord.

(g) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.15(2)(vii)‑‑‑Demand of higher rent‑‑‑Effect on personal bona fide requirement‑‑‑When landlord could otherwise get rent of premises increased through process of law, demand of higher rent by itself, held , would not cast any doubt on personal bona fide requirement of landlord.

Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Choudhry Abdul Rehman 1980 SCMR 772 ref.

(h) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.15(2)(vii)‑‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑‑Proof whether evidence produced by parties could or could not be considered to be sufficient to make out a case for eviction on ground of personal requirement, held. would be a question of fact in each particular case.

Partabrai and another v. Kabir Khan PLD 1977 Kar. 759; Dr. Ashraf Mahmood v. Syed Abdul Malik 1984 MLD 1077; Sultan Press Ltd. v. Muhammad Hasan PLD 1985 Kar. 624; Syed Anis‑ur‑Rehman v. Mst. Sara Bai PLD 1985 Kar. 714; Abdul Khaliq v. Messrs Shahid Muneer Factory 1987 MLD 126; Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Aslam 1987 CLC 686; Ghulam Rasool v. Syed Nazim Hussain Shaikh 1988 CLC 793; Noor Ahmad and another v. Khwaja Imran Ahmad 1988 CLC 1041; Muhammad Yamin v. Mrs. Khaliq Begum 1988 CLC 1297 and Mst. Sara Bai v. Syed Anis‑ur‑Rehman 1989 SCMR 1366 ref.

Sajjad E. Halai for Petitioner.

Zafar Ullah Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th September, 1989.

 HABIB BANK LIMITED VS MUNAWAR ALI SIDDIQUI

1990 M L D 792

[Karachi]

Before Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J

HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑Appellant

versus

Dr. MUNAWAR ALI SIDDIQUI‑‑Respondent

First Rent Appeal No. 347 of 1988, decided on 12/11/1989.

JUDGMENT

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, is directed against the order dated 5‑3‑1988, passed by IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (West) Karachi, by which he allowed the application for ejectment filed by the respondent against the appellant from the disputes premises.

2. Appellant is the tenant of respondent in respect of ground and first floors of the premises constructed on Plot No.l/29, Block V‑B, Nazimabad Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000. The ground floor is utilised for providing locker facility to general public, while first floor is used for residential purposes. The respondent who is a medical practitioner wants to start his own clinic on the ground floor of this premises. He also wants to utilise the first floor for his own occupation as the premises where he is presently residing with his parents is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family. The respondent who has decided to marry now, therefore, urgently requires separate accommodation. The failure of the appellant to vacate the premises for the aforesaid reasons led the parties into this litigation.

3. The appellant has contested the bona fide need of the respondent by stating that the premises in his occupation is sufficient to cater his needs. It is also pleaded by the appellant that the conduct of respondent in continuously demanding increase in rent is a strong factor which militated against his bona fide in respect of the personal requirement.

4. The parties went to trial on the following issues:‑

(i) Whether the tenament in question is bona fidely required by the applicant for his own use and occupation? '

(ii) What should the order be?

5. The respondent examined himself (P.W.‑1), and his father Nazar Ali Siddiqui (P.W.‑2), while the appellant examined Yousuf Ali Khan, an officer of the bank (D.W.‑1).

6. On the assessment of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No.l against the appellant directing ejectment from the disputed premises. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.

Admittedly the disputed premises was rented out to Standard Bank Ltd. in the ,year 1970. After the merger of Standard Bank Ltd., with Habib Bank Ltd., the appellant was accepted as tenant. The record also shows that the premises where the respondent 'is presently residing belongs to his mother, where eight members of family who are all grown up are residing. The desire of respondent to shift to his own premises, therefore, cannot be said to be unreasonable. The respondent was 29 years old in the year 1987, when he was subjected to cross -examination. Admittedly he is unmarried up to this time. The desire of the respondent to shift in his own premises for living an independent life with his wife I appears to be genuine. His words should not be suspected merely because he has not been engaged upto this time. A promise of marriage (MANGNI) which is quite different from an actual marriage (AQD) has no legal effect under Muslim law. There is also no legal requirement to arrange a MANGNI before entering into marriage bond. The premises was rented out in the year 1970. The new requirements of the landlord where the family expands cannot be brushed aside by the Rent Controller and he has to look into all genuine requirements including the desire of the landlord to have an independent and better living, while deciding an application for eviction on personal ground.

8. The respondent also needs the ground floor of the disputed premises for opening a clinic. The requirement to start his own clinic is criticised mainly on the following grounds:‑

(a) The respondent is a fresh graduate with no past experience, hence he cannot run a clinic.

(b) The respondent has got a clinic in the premises where he is presently residing with his parents.

(c) The respondent has taken a full time job in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and, therefore, he cannot attend the clinic, even if opened.

9. Clause (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, only speaks of requirement of premises for own use in good faith. The respondent as the landlord has got an unfettered right to use his own premises in any manner he likes, provided the purpose for which it is used is legal. A pursuit of an occupation with a view to earn profit by opening a clinic is a genuine cause. The apprehension of the appellant that the respondent being a fresh graduate would not fetch sufficient number of patients is hardly a relevant factor for determination of the personal requirement of the respondent. The word "business" by itself is very comprehensive and it includes the business of a general medical practitioner running a clinic or dispensary. The disputed premises is situated in commercial area which is ideal for running a clinic or dispensary. At any rate the suitability of a place for the said purpose is the concern of respondent. Annexure "C" which is the order of appointment of g respondent in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital is self explanatory. It is purely honorary job and can be terminated at any time. It in no way creates an‑ obstacle for the respondent to start his own clinic.

10. The demand of higher rent when the landlord can otherwise get the rent increased through the process of law does not cast any doubt in a case of this nature. The case reported as Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman 1980 S C M R ?72 lays down this principle in the following words:‑

"We do not find any reason for interference and agree with the dictum contained in Badruddin Hasan Farooqui and others v. Manghi Industrial Home P L D 1976 Karachi 620 that a demand of higher rent by itself does not cast any doubts about the personal bona fide requirement if the factum of bona fide requirement is independently proved."

11. Mr.Halai, learned counsel for the appellant, in his well prepared address has invited my attention to the following authorities:‑

(1) Partabrau and another v. Kabir Khan P L D 1977 Karachi 759.

(2) Dr.Ashraf Mahmood v. Syed Abdul Malik 1984 M L D 1077.

(3) Sultan Press Ltd. v. Muhammad Hasaq P L D 1985 Karachi 624.

(4) Syed Anis‑ur‑Rehman v. Mst.Sara Bai P L D 1985 Karachi 714.

(5) Abdul Khaliq v. M/s. Shahid Mu ~eer sac on!`i987 M L D 126.

(6) Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Asiam 1987 C L C 686.

(7) Ghulam Rasool v. Syed Nazim Hussain Shaikh 1988 C. L C 793.

(8) Noor Ahmad and another v. Khwaja Imram Ahmad 1988 C L C 1041.

(9) Muhammad Yamin v. Mrs.Khaliq Begum 1988 C L C 1297

12. Out of the above cases, the case shown at No.4, is reversed by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment reported as Mst. Sara Bai v. Syed Anis‑ur Rehman 1989 S C M R 1366. The other authorities proceed on different premises. I, therefore, do not find it necessary to discuss them, because it is a question of fact, in each particular case, whether the evidence produced by the parties can, or cannot, be considered to be sufficient to make out a case for eviction on the ground of personal requirement.

13. No case for interference is made out and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises.

H.B.T./H‑190/KAppeal dismissed.