1991 PLP 1065 (CLC)

Khalilur Rehman for Appellant. S.M. Afzal for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1990. The respondents riled an ejectment application against the appellant in respect of portion of the building on first floor of which he is a tenant. The respondents are the owners of the entire building and riled ejectment case on ground of personal requirement for their own use and occupation. It was also stated that respondent No.8 is of marriageable age but on account of shortage of accommodation it has not been arranged so far and all the other respondents require separate accommodation. The appellant riled his written statement and pleaded that there are 11 rooms in occupation of the respondents. On the ground floor there are 2 flats consisting of 3 rooms each while on the first floor one flat consisting of 3 rooms and on the top floor there is one flat consisting of two rooms. All are independent units. It was further pleaded that 3 daughters have been married and they are living with their husbands at different places. It was further pleaded that all the remaining 5 occupants have separate rooms and few rooms are in surplus and one unit on the top floor had been rented out. Respondents Nos.4 and 8 riled their affidavit‑in‑evidence in support of the claim. Respondent No.8 has stated that the accommodation in possession of the applicant is insufficient and all the applicants who are co‑owners require the premises for their own use or occupation. He admitted that 6 sisters are married and one sister and he himself are unmarried. They have a joint family system and are in occupation of the entire building except the flat in possession of the appellant. Out of the six married sisters one married sister is living with her in law's and rest are living in this house. Naumaz Mughera respondent No.4 also filed her affidavit and stated that her brother and sisters are residing on the ground floor and one sister resides with her family on the first floor. The accommodation at the disposal of the respondents is insufficient. In cross examination she maintained that all the married sisters except one are living in this house. The appellant filed his affidavit in which he stated that out of 6 married sisters 5 are residing in different places and only 3 applicants are residing in 11 rooms. He has produced 2 witnesses who have also stated that 5 of the 7 sisters are residing with their husbands at different places. Mr. Khahiur Rchman, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claim of the respondents is not bona fide and lacks good faith. He further contended that it has not been stated in the application which of the sisters of co owners would reside in this house nor this fact has been stated in the affidavit‑in evidence and further that only 3 of them are residing in the building which is in excess of their requirement. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Afzal, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the claim by all the respondents is bona fide and the plea raised by the appellant has not been substantiated. A perusal of the affidavit‑in‑evidence makes it clear that the respondents have made the claim against the appellant on the plea that they require the premises for their residence. They have not claimed that the premises will be required by any one or few of them but they claim that all of them shall occupy the entire house and reside there. The evidence in respect of occupation is evenly balanced. Even for argument sake if all the co‑owners are not residing in the house it does not, mean that they do not have a right to reside there. One sister with her family is already residing which according to the evidence is insufficient. She is occupying only top floor which consists of one room but according to the appellant there are two rooms. If several co‑owners want to reside in their house and are not occupying any other house of their own, then in the absence of any evidence which discredits their claim or disproves their bona fides they will be entitled to eject the tenant. This however depends on the facts of each case.1 Under these circumstances the bona rides of the respondents cannot be challenged. Considering the evidence on record, I find that the respondents have succeeded in making out a case for their bona fide requirement. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant shall vacate the premises within three months. H.B.T./M‑1328/K Appeal dismissed.