P L D 1984 Karachi 141 (PLP)

Rent Case No. 3242 of 1975 was filed on 13-9-1975 by the' appellant! landlord for the ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question on the ground of personal requirement. The application was contested by the respondent/tenant. Only the parties appeared as witnesses in support of their respective cases. By order dated 8-8-1977, the learned Rent Controller rejected the ejectment application. First Rent Appeal No. 272 of 1977 was filed by the appellant but the same was dismissed on 29-5-1978 by an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Karachi. By this second appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the First Appellate Authority. I have heard Mr. S. M. Sadiq, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashtq Ali Abdullah, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the respondent.

2. The appellant is the owner of a house in P. E. C. H. Society, Karachi. From the evidence on record, it appears that there are three floors in the said house. On the ground floor there are three portions with separate amenities. One portion with two rooms with a Varandah has been to occupation of the respondent as a tenant of the appellant since 1961.. Another portion with two rooms is in occupation of one son of appellant. The third portion was in occupation of another tenant, Aziz. According to the appellant, the accommodation with tenant Aziz comprised of two rooms, a store-room and one room on the mezzanine floor. It is an admitted position that the tenant Aziz vacated, the premises a few days before the order dated 8-8-1977 passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the ejectment application of the appellant. On the first floor there are four rooms with a Verandah which were in occupation of the appellant, his wife, his widowed daughter and his grandson, that is, the son of the widowed daughter. On the top floor there are four rooms but without any amenities. According to the appellant, the four rooms on the top floor are of construction which is temporary and in these four rooms two other sons and their families were residing. In the ejectment application the appellant had stated that there were 23 members in his family and the accommodation in their occupation was insufficient and unless the portion on the ground floor in occupation of the respondent became available, the appellant could not provide accommo dation to his son and children. In his cross-examination, however, he stated that his family comprises of 20 members. But in his cross-examination he stated the figure as 16 and later on corrected to

17. Both the Tribunals have found that the accommodation in occupation of the appellant is sufficient and that no case for ejectment had been made out by the appellant. One of the sons of the appellant, Masood-ur-Rehman, according to the appellant, also resides with him. Although, it was neither mentioned in the ejectment application nor in the examination-in-chief of the appellant, it came out in the cross-examination of the appellant that there is a flat in Al-Azam Square, Karachi, which, according to the appellant, belonged to his son, Masood-ur-Rehman and according to the respondent, belonged to the appellant himself. In his cross-examination he was confronted with an advertisement published in a Karachi newspaper (Exh. 5), which offered the flat for rent. It was admitted by the appellant that he had given the advertisement in the newspaper. In .the advertisement it is mentioned that persons interested should contact the appellant. The appellant denied that the flat belonged to him. His case was that the flat belonged to his son Masood-ur-Rehman and as the appellant was leading a retired life and had time available, he had given the advertisement on behalf of his son. The son Masood-ur-Rehman did. not appear as a witness nor any document was produced to show that the flat belonged to Masood-ur-Rehman. On the basis of this evidence on record it is possible to infer that the flat belonged to the appellant. If the .flat belonged to the appellant, the same being situated in the same urban area, the appellant was required to disclose the same in his ejectment application or in any case in his examination-in-chief and further he was required to prove that the said flat was either vacant or it was not suitable for his needs and the needs of his children. This has not been done. Even if the said flat belonged to Masood-ur-Rehman, as additional accommodation in occupation the tenantl'respondent was being claimed on the ground that his children including Masood-ur-Rehman required additional accommodation, it was necessary for the appellant to disclose the fact of ownership of the said flat in Al-Azam Square, Karachi and then to have established that either the said flat was not vacant or that the said flat was not suitable for the needs of Masood-ur-Rehman. This has also not been done in the instant case.

3. On the basis of the evidence it can be observed that there are 13 to 17 persons including the children in the family of the appellant, who reside in the house in question and that there are about 14 to 17 rooms in occupa tion of the appellant and his said family members. The two Tribunals have found that the accommodation available with the appellant in the said house is sufficient for the appellant and his family members and as this finding is based on evidence, I find no reason to interfere with this finding. Further, as observed earlier, the appellant had neither disclosed in his ejectment application nor in his examination-in-chief about the ownership of the flat in Al-Azam Square, located in the same urban area as the premises it question, and that it was not established that the said flat was occupied or if vacant it was not suitable for his son's (Masood-ur-Rehman) accommodation. In this view of the matter, the requirement of section 13 (3) (a) (i) (b) of the 1959 Rent Ordinance has not been fulfilled by the appellant and as such his ejectment application could not have been granted.

4. I find no merit in this- appeal. Second Appeal No. 310 of 1978 is dismissed with costs. M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.