1986 PLP 2522 (CLC)

This appeal has' arisen from the order of IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi, dated 15th November, 1984, whereby the ejectment application of the respondent was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within 120 days of the said order. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent Mirza Jalaluddin is the landlord/owner of the building situated at 15/15, 'B' Area, Liaquatabad, Karachi and the appellant is occupying first floor of the said building as tenant of the respondent. On 15‑5‑1980 the respondent filed ejectment application seeking ejectment of the appellant from the said premises on two grounds; namely, default in payment of rent and personal requirement of the premises by the respondent The appellant assailed both the grounds, descrying the allegations of the default and personal requirement. The respondent produced affidavit‑in‑evidence of his two sons, Mirza Salahuddin and Zisuddin besides his personal affidavit‑in‑evidence. On the other hand the appellant only filed her personal affidavit‑in‑evidence. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence produced by both the parties and after hearing their counsel, allowed the ejectment application only on the ground of personal requirement deciding the issue of non‑payment of rent against the respondent. Not satisfied with the decision, the appellant has come in this appeal though the respondent has not challenged the finding of the lower. Court with regard to default by filing appeal or cross -objections. , After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal was dismissed by short order, dated 23‑2‑1986 for reasons to be recorded separately. By the said order the appellant was directed to vacate the demised premises and hand‑over the possession thereof to the respondent within 4 months of the said short order subject to depositing of monthly rent regularly in the lower Court. In case of default in this regard, the appellant would be ejected from the disputed premises forthwith without any further notice. As disclosed in the ejectment application which is the foundation of the respondent/landlord's case, the demised premises were rented out to the appellant about 7 years prior to filing of the ejectment application when the children of the respondent were minor and that since present accommodation namely ground floor of the disputed building which is in occupation of the respondent and his 8 children is not sufficient, he needs the disputed first floor in good faith for his personal use as well as for the use of his children. The respondent has re‑iterated his above plea in his affidavit‑in‑evidence. He is fully corroborated by his two sons. Salahuddin has stated in his affidavit that he is married and has two children. As for his brother Ziauddin, he has said that he too is waiting for marriage. Similarly Ziauddin has deposed that his marriage is scheduled to take place very soon. From the above evidence of respondent /landlord and his two sons, it is clear that two married families: one of the respondent himself and another of his married son Salahuddin are occupying the ground floor which admittedly consists of two rooms and one small store room which is not used for residential purposes. In reply to a question put to him on behalf of the appellant, the respondent has stated that one room is occupied by his‑ married son and the other one is shared by him with his wife; two sons and three daughters. He has also admitted in cross‑examination that his married son (Mirza Salahuddin) is employed in Sind Government Press, Karachi whereas his son Ziauddin has service in T&T Department. He has farther stated that no accommodation has been provided to either of his sons by their employers. It is also in his evidence that his son Ziauddin is engaged and there is pressure on him for arranging his marriage at an early date. As against the evidence of the respondent and his two sons discussed above, all that the appellant has stated in her affidavit‑in -evidence is that three rooms in occupation of the respondent and his family members on the ground floor of the disputed building are enough for them and, therefore, the respondent's demand for the disputed first floor is not made in good faith. She has further stated that the respondent's son Salahuddin is permanent Government employee entitled to Government and that he has actually made application for the same and even otherwise he is independent of his father. As for his another son Ziauddin, her statement is that he too is independent of his father and allegation of his engagement is false as it lacks corroboration by those who participated in the engagement ceremony. She has further stated that Salahuddin has acquired flats in U.K. Plaza and A1‑Karam, Square, from which he has disposed one flat during pendency of this case. She has also stated that she is making efforts to collect the details about the said acquisitions and hopes to produce additional evidence in that regard. Despite her evidence discussed above she has admitted in course of cross‑examination that the respondent's sons Salahuddin and Ziauddin reside with him in the same house. It is also her own admission that Salahuddin is married. It is further admitted by the appellant that respondent has four daughters from whom two are still unmarried Thus, her evidence shows that the respondent is living in the accommodation of three rooms including one store room on the ground floor of disputed building, with one married son and his wife and one adult son who is awaiting marriage and one minor son and two unmarried daughters. In view of this admission on her part, it can be safely held that the present accommodation in possession of the respondent and his family members is not sufficient for their requirements and, therefore, their need for more accommodation is genuine. The respondent as well as his sons have denied that they own any other accommodation any where is Pakistan except that which is in possession of the appellant (i.e. first floor of the disputed building). On the other hand the appellant has not been able to prove that the respondent has any other accommodation except that of the disputed first floor in possession of the appellant herself. This is clear from her own statement that she is still collecting the necessary details as regards acquisitions of flats by the respondent's son Salahuddin. She has not produced any written or oral evidence to substantiate her statement that respondent's son has acquired any flat in any locality. More allegations made by her in this regard cannot be taken as proof of the same. However, it is not her evidence that respondent himself has acquired any premises or owns any accommodation elsewhere. For above reasons I am convinced that the present accommodation in occupation of respondent /landlord and his family members is insufficient and, therefore, his demand for vacating of the first floor of the disputed building by the appellant is genuine. The learned Rent Controller has, therefore, allowed the respondent's application for eviction of the appellant for good reasons. I see no justification to upset his findings. Accordingly, as stated above, the appeal having no merits was dismissed with no order as to costs, directing the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within 4 months of the short order referred to above. M . Y . H . ` Appeal dismissed.