1991 PLP 1434 (SCMR)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑‑The appellant' is aggrieved by the refusal of the Courts below to allow her application for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises in his occupation on the ground of bona fide personal need. On the evidence produced before the Rent Controller it has been established that the appellant is presently residing with her father in a house owned by her step‑mother. The learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the appellant on the ground that she is an unmarried girl and is occupying a whole floor of the house where she is living. Accordingly the learned Rent Controller held that the application for eviction was not made in good faith. The learned Judge in the High Court, who dismissed the appeal of the appellant, referred to the past conduct of the appellant having demanded vacant possession from the respondent but when the rent was enhanced the tenancy was continued and held that the application for eviction was riled mala fide.

2. Leave was, granted by this Court is order to examine the contention of the appellant that the question as to sufficiency of accommodation in the house where the appellant was living at present and which admittedly did not belong to her was not a relevant consideration for dismissing the ejectment application. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that in view of the settled position of law, the fact that the landlady was living with her father and had sufficient accommodation at her disposal was wholly irrelevant as the house in which she was at present living was not owned by her. The submission was that a landlord has the prerogative to occupy his own accommodation and cannot be compelled to continue living in the house of a relative as a licensee or even as a tenant of the third party. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contended that past conduct referred to above clearly reflected the mala fides of the plea that the premises were required by the appellant for her own use. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the evidence led at the trial. Riaz uddin Ahmad, father of the appellant and her attorney who appeared as witness in support of the eviction application has stated in his deposition as under:‑‑

"Initially the rent was Rs.300 per month. I have not demanded rent at an enhanced rate from the opponent. It is incorrect to suggest that I want to get the premises vacated in order to increase the rent." There is nothing in his deposition admitting that the notices were served on the tenant in the past to vacate the premises for personal use of the appellant and that no action was taken thereon when the rent was increased. No doubt the respondent in his deposition had alleged that such notices were served in the past and whenever he increased the rent no action was taken for eviction. But in the absence of any such question being put to the witness of the appellant, a bald statement on the part of the tenant cannot be held sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant had in the past increased the rent on threats of eviction. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Judge in the High Court that there was sufficient evidence to prove the mala fides of the appellant. To us there appears no other circumstances in the evidence which in any way reflect upon the bona fide of the claim put up by the appellant that she really wants to occupy her own house. It is now well‑settled that the fact that the landlord is occupying other rented premises or is living with relatives is no ground to disentitle him from occupying his own premises. Therefore, we find that the reasons which prevailed with the learned Rent Controller and the learned Judge in the High Court for refusing the prayer of the appellant are not sustainable.

3. For the foregoing reasons we accept this appeal and allow the application of the appellant for eviction. The respondent shall hand over vacant possession of the premises to the appellant. In the circumstances of this cases, however, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. AA./N‑284/S Appeal accepted.