1986 PLP 1606 (MLD)

This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 29‑4‑1985 passed by IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereby the eviction application filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate and to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute within' three months from the date of the order. The facts which give rise to this appeal are that the respondent is the owner of house bearing No. C‑44, Unit No. VI, Latifabad .Hyderabad and the appellant is tenant in respect thereof at the monthly rent of Rs.200. The respondent filed eviction application on the ground of her bona fide personal requirement. The appellant filed written statement and resisted the application. The respondent examined herself in support of the application and beside herself she examined Nazeer Ahmed and Aftab Ahmed Khan. The appellant examined himself and was cross‑examined by the respective counsel. The Rent' Controller on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and after taking into consideration the arguments of learned counsel for the parties allowed the application vide order dated 29‑4‑1985. The appellant being aggrieved against the order, dated 29‑4‑1985 of the IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, filed the First Rent, Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Mr. Rashiduddin Ahmed Khan the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent failed to prove her case set up by her in eviction application. On the other hand Mr. S. A. Shaukat Naqvi the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent proved her case as set out in the eviction application and the order is in accord with evidence on record. The respond[ent in her application stated that after the death of her husband at Hyderabad, she shifted to Karachi and started living with Aftab Ahmed son of Nazir Ahmed, the nephew of her deceased husband. Nazir Ahmed got his son Aftab Ahmed married and also gave the house to Aftab Ahmed. The respondent lived with him peacefully for a period of about 5 to 6 months. But after that she realised that wife of Aftab Ahmed did not like her stay with them. She started picking quarrels with her whereupon they started asking her to leave their house and make some other arrangement for her living. She shifted to Hyderabad and sought a temporary shelter over her head in the house of Shakoor, an old friend of her husband. She required the house in question for her bona fide personal use. She filed affidavit in‑evidence and reiterated the same fact. In rebuttal the appellant stated in his affidavit‑in‑evidence that the respondent filed eviction application at the instance of Nazir Ahmed as the earlier eviction application filed by him on the ground of personal requirement was dismissed. ' It was also averred that the respondent through Nazir Ahmed wanted to enhance rent from Rs.200 to Rs.500 but he refused to increase the rate of the monthly rent on his refusal Nazir Ahmed started most improperly compelling him for vacating the house in question by raising totally baseless /completely false pleas sometimes by saying that the house in question was required by Nazir Ahmed and sometime by saying that he (Nazir Ahmed) wanted to sell the house in question. As against all the aforesaid evidence discussed above there was only word of the appellant in his evidence that the respondent demanded enhancement of rent from Rs.200 to Rs.500. It is apparent that the statement, in eviction application about personal requirement of the respondent has been fully supported in her deposition and nothing has been brought out in her cross‑examination which could show the claim to be false or based on wrong statements. It is well‑settled legal position that assertion of the respondent on oath as to requirement of the house in dispute for her personal us has to be accepted as bona fide if consistent with her averment in her application and not shaken in cross‑examination or disproved in rebuttal With regard to the allegation 'of mala fide to the effect that the eviction applications was filed at the instance of Nazir Ahmed. It is pertinent to note that the appellant himself admitted in the earlier proceedings filed by Nazir Ahmed that he (Nazir Ahmed) is not the landlord but the respondent is landlady of the house in dispute. In this view of the matter there is no substance in this contention. With regard to the allegation that the appellant was approached through Nazir Ahmed for enhancement of rent from Rs.200 to Rs.500. This allegation was denied by her as well as Nazir Ahmed. Even mere demand of enhancement of rent itself is not mala fide if the personal requirement are proved. 1 am supported in this view of mine by decision in Badruddin Hasan Farooqui through his 5 legal representatives v. Manghi Industrial Home P L D 1976 Kar.

620. Mr. M.A. Rashid, J., (as he then was) had before him facts similar to the facts of the instant case and he had taken the same view as I am now taking. The dictum laid down in the said decision was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Peerzada Rafiq Ahmed v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman 1980 S C M R

772. With regard to the allegation that the respondent had totally denied the same in her deposition. Moreover the safeguard against the letting out the premises or parting with the premises to some one after getting the tenant evicted was provided in section 15‑A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, that the tenant could be put back in possession if the landlady does not occupy the house in dispute herself after getting him evicted on the ground of personal requirement. For the foregoing reasons I find the order of the Rent Controller was based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The appeal was dismissed in limine. The appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the house in question within four months from 25‑8‑1985. H. B. T. Appeal dismissed.