1986 PLP 1523 (CLC)

bona fide need because she let out premises to him after obtaining its possession from other tenant repelled‑‑Fact that premises was let out to him in such manner, held, could not negate claim of personal bona fide need of landlady in cirumstances. (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 21(1)‑‑Personal bona fide need‑‑Proof‑‑Evidence on record showing that family of landlady consisted of herself and four children‑‑Besides landlady appeared to be lady of some status and was maintaining some servants as well, portion coot vacated from other tenant could hardly be described as sufficient for need of landlady‑‑No ground, held, was available for interference with finding of Rent Controller on issue of personal and bona fide need of landlady in circumstances. K.B. Bhutto for Appellant. Asghar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th September, 1985. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant/ tenant against the order of Rent Controller, directing his eviction on the application of respondent/ landlady filed on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The application was instituted by the respondent alleging default in payment of rent from May, 1979, as well as personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent. The Rent Controller rejected the plea of default but allowed the application on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. Mr. K.B. Bhutto, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Rent Controller misread the evidence in granting eviction of the appellant on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. It is urged by the learned counsel that the respondent admittedly let out the premises to his client on 27‑2‑1976, after obtaining its possession from another tenant which shows that she did not need the premises for her personal and bona fide needs. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the respondent during June, 1978 to April 1979 addressed 4 letters to the appellant in connection with dispute relating to adjustment of electric and gas charges but in none of those notices she mentioned her need for the premises which also shows that her claim was not genuine. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel that in any case the accommodation already with the respondent is sufficient for her requirement but the Rent Controller failed to notice the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has any force. It is true that the premises were let out by the respondent to the appellant on 22‑2‑1976, after she had obtained possession thereof from another tenant, but this could not negate the claim of respondent in the circumstances of present case. It is an admitted position that portion in occupation of the appellant is the half portion of the flat on the ground floor and at the time it was let out to the appellant the other half was occupied by another tenant Sultan Merchant against whom the appellant had filed proceedings for eviction on ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The respondent in her evidence before the Rent Controller categorically asserted that she let out half portion of flat to appellant as a result of persuasion by his father who was approached by the appellant through a common friend of appellant and respondent's father, on the understanding that the appellant will; vacate the premises as soon as the other half portion occupied by the1Q tenant Sultan Merchant is vacated by him. This statement of respondent was corroborated by her father who was also examined in the case as a witness. Neither the statement of the respondent nor that of her father in this regard was challenged in cross‑examination by the appellant. In addition to it the admitted agreement of tenancy between the parties was only for a period of 8 months and the appellant had undertaken to deliver vacant possession after its expiry. This circumstance also supported the plea of respondent that the premises was let out to the appellant for a short period in order to accommodate him and he had( agreed to vacate the same as soon as possession of the other ha l portion was received by her from her tenant Sultan Merchant. In so far the delay in filing the rent application urged by the learned counsel is concerned the same has been explained in the evidence of the respondent and her witness and this part of the testimony could not be shaken in cross‑examination. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the correspondence which took place between them during June, 1978 to April, 1979, respondent did not mention her personal and bona fide requirement, and, therefore, Rent Controller should have held that her claim for the premises was not bona fide. This argument equally has no force. Firstly no such question was asked to the respondent or her witness in cross‑examination so that they could explain the reason for this omission. The appellant in his own evidence also did not mention any such fact. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly pointed out that the correspondence referred by the learned counsel related to wrong adjustment of the gas and electric charges and, therefore, there was no occasion for the landlady to have mentioned about her personal requirements. In addition to it, it has come in the evidence of the respondent that she had allowed extension of time to the appellant to vacate the premises and, therefore, in these circumstances, the absence of mention of personal and bona fide need of landlady in the letters written during June, 1978 to November, 1979 is understandable. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accommodation, namely, half portion of premises which the respondent got vacated from the tenant Sultan Merchant is sufficient for her need. This contention has been considered by the Rent Controller and rightly rejected. The evidence on record shows that the family of respondent consisted of herself and 4 children. Besides, the respondent appears to be a lady of some status and is maintaining some servants as well. The portion vacated by her tenant Sultan Merchant according to evidence on record consists of only half portion of drawing room and one living room. This accommodation can hardly be described as sufficient for the needs of the landlady/ respondent. There is no ground for interference with the finding of the Rent Controller on issue of personal and bona fide requirement. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. I will, however, make no order as to costs. The appellant is allowed four months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he shall continue to pay or deposit monthly rent in Court during this period and in case he failed to vacate the premises after this period he will be ejected without further notice. H . B. T . Appeal dismissed.