1984 PLP 628 (SCMR)

S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judg ment of the Sind High Court dated 21‑4‑1983 whereby her first Rent Appeal challenging the order of her eviction dated 20‑12‑1981, from the disputed premises passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, was dismissed. The petitioner, since quite some time, has been a tenant of the respon dent landlady in respect of one of the fiats on the first floor of bungalow in P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi, the rent whereof was raised from time to time from Rs. 425 to Rs. 610. The respondent by an application made under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance, 1959 sought ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground that the premises was required by her for her personal bona fide use. The case of the respondent was that she had been residing in a house of her relation in Rawalpindi along with other family members and required the disputed premises for her own use and occupation because she wanted to shift to Karachi. The petitioner filed her written statement and examined Asif Hussain, her son and attorney as a witness in the case. The main defence of the petitioner was that the application for ejectment was filed mala fide by the respondent who wanted to increase the rent. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was furnished by her husband who filed an affidavit in support of the application and was duly cross‑examined. On l the basis of the evidence of the parties the issue with regard to bona fide A requirement of the premises was decided against the petitioner by the learned Rent Controller as per his order dated 20‑12‑1981 and the said findings were confirmed by the learned High Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on the record. As respects the specific plea of the respondent that she was living in a rented premises of Rawalpindi and wanted to shift to Karachi, the respondent's attorney bad simply to state that he could not say any thing regarding the said averments. Not the statement of respondent's attorney was challenged in this behalf in cross‑examination. On the contrary the respondent's attorney denied that the application for ejectment had been filed because the petitioner had failed to increase the rent. The respondent had earlier served the petitioner with a notice to vacate the premises on the ground mentioned in the applica tion, which act was admitted by the petitioner's attorney. It was also ad mitted that in such notice no demand for enhancement of rent had been made. As discussed above, there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned two Courts below on the question of bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondents which do not give rise to any question of law. The impugned judgment, in the circumstances, is unexceptionable and the petition has no merits which is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner is allowed four months' time to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent provided she continues to deposit the monthly rent in terms of the order passed in the case. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.