1993 PLP 2239 (MLD)

The following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:‑‑‑ (1) Whether the applicant needs tenanted premises for the use of his daughter Mst. Perveen Kausar bona fide? (2) What should the order be? Both the parties led their evidence and were cross‑examined by the respective learned counsel. I have heard Mr. M. Suhail H.K. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Mr. Niazi A. Khalique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and have gone through the R and P of the case. The narration of the above facts indicates that the ejectment from the demised premises has been sought on the ground of personal use of the married daughter of the respondent. The learned lower Court after considering the evidence produced by both the parties came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute was required by the respondent bona fide and in good faith for the genuine need of his married daughter Mst. Perveen Kausar, who has two children. The A aforesaid daughter has been residing with the respondent since the time of her marriage. Another married daughter, having children is also residing with the respondent in the same building. Mr. Suhail H.K. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 does not include the married children for the purpose of personal need. He placed reliance on the case of Mst. Anwar Jehan v. Ismail Khan 1984 CLC 2849, which lays down as under: ‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss: 15 & 21‑‑‑Ejectment‑‑‑Personal requirement‑‑‑Landlord including requirement of married daughter, her husband and children as his personal requirement without showing that married daughter living with him since her marriage or any other explanation therefor‑‑ Landlord's personal requirement, held, would not include requirement of his daughter, her husband or children." On the other hand, Mr. Niazy A. Khalique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on the case of Mst. Farukh Nisa v. Safdar Ahmed and 6 others PLD 1985 Kar. 639, whereby it is held that: ‑‑ "The ejectment could also be pressed in respect of personal need of married and independent children." Reliance was also placed on the case of Haji Gulab Baig v. Mst. Sayeda Tayaba Ishtiiaq 1991 MLD 1377. There are number of authorities on the point of personal and bona fide requirement. Reference may be made to: ‑‑ PLD 1967 Kar.43; PLD 1980 Lah. 225;1986 SCMR 1207;1986 SCMR 651;1988 SCMR 1587 and 1991 SCMR

846. I am of the view that each case is to be decided on its own merits in the light of the authorities available on the relevant point. Furthermore, in view of the case‑laws quoted above, there appears no embargo that ejectment cannot be sought for accommodating married children. As regards the ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide need, it is unanimously held by various Courts that such need should be genuine and the ejectment should be sought in good faith. So far as the present case is concerned, I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded by the learned lower Court. Admittedly, the building comprises of four flats containing two rooms each. Out of the aforesaid four flats, two flats have been in possession of the tenants, out of which one tenant has ‑ already vacated the flat while remaining flat is in possession of the appellant. Obviously, three small flats containing two rooms each do not appear to be sufficient to accommodate the families of the respondent and his two married daughters. There is nothing on record to show B that after the marriage, any of the daughters left the house of the respondent and at any time resided separately. On the contrary one flat earlier got vacated is being used by the elder married daughter of the respondent. It appears that the respondent wanted to provide residential accommodation to his second married daughter as well. Such custom prevails in some classes of our society where residential accommodation is provided by the father to his married daughters. No evidence has come on record to show that the respondent wanted the ejectment of the appellant with a view to let out the premises in dispute to some other person on an enhanced rent. On the contrary the previous conduct of the respondent that he had already accommodated his elder daughter in the other flat in the same building indicates that be has bona fide and genuine intention to accommodate his second daughter, as well. I find myself in agreement with the learned lower‑ Court that the respondent required the flat in dispute in good faith for the genuine need of accommodating his married daughter. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that son‑in‑law of the respondent was an employee of P.IA., and was getting house rent from that organisation as such the son‑in‑law could have arranged accommodation for himself and his family. Such plea carries no weight as the details of the employment and the emoluments of the aforesaid son‑in‑law have not been brought on record. Even otherwise, an employee getting house rent from his employer cannot be compelled to shift from the residential accommodation of parents or other relatives. In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that ejectment of the premises in dispute has been sought by the respondent in good faith and on genuine grounds, as such, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present appeal carries no merits and stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the aforesaid premises in dispute to the respondent within two months of the date of this judgment. H.B.T./A/1264/K Appeal dismissed.