1984 PLP 3523 (CLC)

‑‑Ss. 15 8 21(1)‑‑Bona fide personal requirement‑‑Landlord stating that he has been putting up in house of his brother, who has 8 members of his own family, in addition to his 8 members of family, remaining un- rebutted‑‑Discrepancy in statements that there were two rooms having separate entrance and courtyard and that there was only one room of landlord, held, immaterial‑‑Ejectment order maintained. This is an appeal against the order, dated 30th January, 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Jacobabad in Rent Application No. 11/1976. The above application was filed by the respondent for ejectment on 3rd February, 1976 on the ground of default, causing damage to the property and personal requirement. The matter was agitated upto the High Court level in Second Appeal No.12/1979 which appeal was allowed by judgment dated 25th February, 1981 and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller who allowed the application on the ground of personal requirement and rejected the other grounds. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Khalik Dino Tanwari learned counsel for the appellant has made following submissions:‑ (i) That since one of the executants of the sale‑deed Mst. Hayat Khatoon made a statement on oath that had mortgaged house and she had not sold, the respondent was under obligation to examine Mst. Hayat Khatoon or her daughter Mst. Fatima who was also executants of the sale‑deed and therefore, the ownership has not been proved. (ii) That it was the case of the appellant that the respondent and his brother are putting up in a house having two rooms and courtyard and each room having a separate entrance whereas it was the case of the respondent that the aforesaid house had only one room and since there was discrepancy in the version of the parties, the Rent Controller should have inspected the site as application was made by the appellant. (iii) That the personal requirement has not been proved.

3. As regards the first contention, it may be observed that in the first round of litigation the respondent had produced extract from the Record of Rights indicating that the respondent had purchased this property from its previous owner. However, Mst. Hayat Khatoon was examined by the appellant and she had stated that she had mortgaged the property and not sold the property in the cross‑examination. On the basis of the above statement in the cross‑examination, the application was rejected. The first appeal was also rejected. After that second appeal was filed and before the High Court registered sale‑deed, dated 11th December, 1973 was produced. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case. Before the Rent Controller the original sale‑deed was proved by the respondent through examination‑in‑chief. Admittedly Mst. Hayat Khatoon had expired by the time the case was remanded by the High Court to the Rent Controller and, therefore, she could not have been summoned for confronting the sale‑deed to her. It is an admitted position that after the execution of the above sale‑deed nobody has claimed any rent from the appellant. In this view of the matter, in my view the production of the original sale‑deed duly registered with the Sub‑Registrar coupled with the certified copy of the Record of Rights was sufficient to prove the title of the respondent. However, Mr. Tanwari has vehemently urged that under section 154 of the Evidence Act the executants of the document should have been confronted with the document in the cross-examination. It is true that Mst. Hayat Khatoon could have been confronted with the sale‑deed in the cross‑examination, when she had appeared and there seems to be lapse on the part of the respondent but after the remand of the case admittedly she could not have been summoned for confronting the sale‑deed. Nothing was brought by the respondent in rebuttal to the original sale‑deed. He could have examined Mst. Fatima the daughter of Mst. Hayat Khatoon who was, also executants of the sale‑deed. In my view the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of title seems to be in accordance with law.

4. Referring to the second contention of Mr. Tanwari that there was discrepancy between the version given by the appellant and the respondent as to the accommodation in the house in which the respondent has been putting up, namely according to the appellant there are two rooms having two separate entrances and courtyard, whereas according to the respondent there is only one room, in my view this discrepancy is not material for the purpose of deciding the issue. The statement of the respondent that he has been putting up in the house of his brother, who has 8 members of his own family in addition to the respondent's 8 members of the family remained unrebutted. Though in the cross‑examination it was suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said house belonged to their ancestor but nothing was brought on record to substantiate this suggestion. This suggestion was denied by the respondent. Since it is proved position that the respondent has been putting up with his brother who has 8 members of the family and it is also proved that the respondent has also 8 members of the family, the above discrepancy as pointed out has no relevancy. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement seems to be correct. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. However, 1 would grant one year time to the appellant on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file execution application before the expiry of the above period of one year. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period of one year the Rent Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant. M.A.K. Appeal dismissed.