1989 PLP 1096 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 15 (2) (vii)‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑Proof‑‑Evidence on record showed that landlord required premises for his personal use and for use of his family‑‑Landlord was residing along with his ten family members with his son in a rented house which itself was insufficient to meet requirements of his family‑‑Landlord's desire to live in his own house along with his family, held, was quite genuine and bona fide. Muhammad Abdul Rauf v. Mst. Mahmooda Begum 1985 SCMR 1960 and Gul Hassan v. Habibullah and 3 others 1985 CLC 2281 ref. Rehmat Elahi for Appellant. Syed Inayat Ali and A.R. Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1989.. , This is an appeal filed against the order of the Rent Controller, passed against the present appellant directing his ejectment. The facts of the case are that the present respondent /landlady had filed the ejectment proceedings on the ground of personal requirement. Her case is that she owns the premises in dispute which was rented out to the present appellant for residential‑cum‑commercial purposes at the monthly rent of Rs.350. She has further contended that she is residing with her son who lives in the rented house and she desires to shift to her own house which she requires in good faith for her personal use as well as that of her husband and children. It has come in evidence that the respondent along with ten family members of her is living with her son in a rented house which comprises of four living rooms and two store rooms. It has also come in evidence that the said son of the respondent is employed as Electrical Engineer in Kannop and his marriage has been held up for want of accommodation and that he wants to get married and live in the said rented house with his wife. It is in these circumstances, the respondent desires to shift to her house which is at present in the tenancy of the present appellant. Mr. Rehmat Elahi, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the main requirement for invoking the jurisdiction under section 15(vii) is to show that the landlady required the premises in good faith. According to his submission, the requirement of the landlady in the present case was mala fide for the reasons that in the first instance the premises were commercial premises which were rented out for the purpose of running Hosiery Factory and that the electric connection was also taken for that purpose and secondly, that at present the respondent was living in the house, of course a rented one, comprising of six rooms, whereas the house in dispute contained only two rooms. He has referred to the case of Doctor Bano Abedin v. Doctor Haq Nawaz Arbab PLD 1982 Kar. 818 and the case of Jamil Ahmed v. Mst. Sultana Jehan Begum PLD 1974 Kar.

319. M/s. Syed Inayat Ali and Abdul Rashid Mirza, learned Advocates appearing for the respondent, repelling the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, have drawn my attention to section 2(h) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which gives the definition of word "premises" as under:‑ (h)‑‑"premises" means a building or land, let out on rent, but does not include a hotel," They have argued that the definition of premises as given in Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is not pari materia with the definition of premises or building as given in West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959. It may be pointed out that in the earlier Ordinance of 1959, the buildings of different categories ware defined in section 2(d)(g) and (h). A line of distinction was drawn between the residential, non‑residential and scheduled buildings, whereas the said distinction has been done away with by the legislature while defining the word premises in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. They have placed reliance on the case of Abdul alik v. Haji Ejaz Ahmad 1985 SCMR 1555. From the above discussion, it is ot,vious that the definitions as used in Sind Rented Premises .Ordinance, 1979, are not in pari materia of those of repealed Ordinance, I 1959. M/s. Syed Inayat Ali and Mirza Abdul Rashid, learned counsel for the respondent, have also referred to the cases of Muhammad Abdul Rauf v. Mst. Mahmooda Begum 1985 SCMR 1960 and Gul Hassan v. Habibullah and 3 others 1985 CLC 2281, wherein it was held that the landlord putting up along with his sons, desiring to live in premises owned by him cannot be said to have the mala fide intention behind his such desire. From the above discussion and the facts, I am convinced that the respondent's desire to live in her own house along with her family is quite genuine and bona fide. For the said reasons, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent within (90) ninety days of the passing of this order. H.B.T.IN‑167/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.