P L D 1983 Karachi 606 (PLP)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Rent Controller, on 6-1-1982 whereby he dismissed the rent application of the appellant Ch. Faqeer Muhammad son of Mian Najaf Ali.

2. Briefly the appellant/landlord rented out one flat of his Bungalow No. 6/249-E in P. E. C. H. Society, Karachi. In 1966, however, the appellant needed further accommodation and the respondent was shifted to ground floor of the same bungalow on a monthly rent of Rs. 325 per month which the respondent was paying. The appellant/landlord was a Federal Government servant and he retired from the Government service in the year 1980. At the time of retirement he was posted at Lahore and had reached the age of 60 years. At the time of his, proceeding to Lahore part of the family of the appellant was residing with him and the remaining was residing in Karachi in a portion of the bungalow in question. After the retirement he needed extra accommodation for himself and for the family members residing with him while he was posted outside the Karachi. At the time of retirement the appellant was a Senior Class I Engineer in Grade-18. The appellant has a large family to look after. An application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was technically dismissed by the High Court as subsection (2) of the section 14 hit the said application. However, the rent application under section 15 was competent and accordingly an application under section 15 was filed before the IInd Senior Civil Judge. The prayer in the said application was that the disputed premises are required for the personal use of the applicant and for his children who were sons and daughters of marriageable ages. He also prayed that he had reached 60 years of age and the old age has told upon his eye-sight. The respondent who is a tenant occupies three rooms, garrage (having no car), servant quarter with bath and big lawn and a mosaic floor terrace. It is further prayed by the appellant that the furniture, car and other articles brought by him are lying under the open sky. He in good faith needed the accommodation to start indoor consultancy work and to set up a library to accommodate his books etc. During the course of pendency of application under section 14 three daughters and one son of the appellant had gone to United States and U. K. for a short period to meet their married sister, and recently they have also returned back to stay in Karachi with the appellant. One son is on business trip and he is also expected to be back shortly. The respondent in his written statement has refuted the facts alleged by the appellant stating that the family of the appellant consisted of husband, wife, one son and one daughter and there was enough of accommodation in their possession and occupation which was sufficient for them. The respondent further alleged that the appellant was keeping very good health and he no longer in good faith needed further accommodation. The Rent Application filed by him was mala fide and it was only due to the demand of enhanced rent which was not acceded to by the respondent and hence he has filed the rent application.

3. The appeal was argued by Mr. S. Inayat Ali Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Hudda on behalf of the respondent. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the Rent Controller.

4. The fact is that the appellant- is a retired Government Servant and has a large family consisting of daughters and sons. Only one daughter is married and is permanently settled in U. S. A. Three daughters had temporarily gone to U. S. A. and U. K. but have returned and are living with the appellant. There is a boy studying in the Third Year Engineering in the college. The husband, wife, three daughters and one son is quite large family for a retired Officer who needs the accommodation of his own house for his own occupation and for his children. The exigency does exist that the daughters would be married and they would need more space. The fact which is outstanding and glaring is that the appellant is a retired Officer and has a large family. The number of family members whether it is 6, 8 or 10 is immaterial. Even. the number 6 would be construed' to be a large family. The future of the children is also to be looked into when the Rent Application under section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is to be considered on the grounds of the personal need. The averment of the appellant is that he needs more space for having a room for office of engineering consultancy and for a library. Enough articles are lying under the sunshine to be arranged and kept. The learned Rent Controller has wrongly considered and presumed contrary to the facts on record that the departure of the daughters and son for States for obtaining an opportunity to get Green Card means that they have migrated permanently in the foreign country. This presumption is wrong and green card does not mean that they would permanently settle abroad. They are unmarried and would return and in fact they have returned back to join the parents. Mr. S. Inayat Ali, Advocate for the appellant has contended that the affidavits of three girls who had gone abroad were not considered due to the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent that this would amount to additional evidence on record. Indeed it is not additional evidence there was no application for adducing the evidence in addition to what is relied upon by the trial Court. Suffice it to say that these girls have returned to Pakistan and have joined their parents. The learned Rent Controller in the impugned order fell in error that sons and daughters were required to be cross-examined to ascertain their marriageable ages. It is sufficient that they are grown up and if today they are not of marriageable ages then in near future they would attain that age and they would be married and for that purpose the premises would be needed by the appellant. There is no mala fide in this assertion. Even the condition of aged retired Officer having a large family, who also does not have good health and wants to occupy the lower portion for the consultancy office, need be taken into consideration while assessing his requirements. Much of the order of the learned Rent Controller is based on the number of family members and the space occupied by the appellant presently. There would be three grounds which are sufficient to hold that the premises in question is required by the appellant in good faith. Firstly that he is .al retired Officer having attained the age of 60 years, secondly that he has C daughters of marriageable ages gad a large family and thirdly that he has to sustain himself by having a separate room, for consultancy office-cum-library.

5. These three grounds are sufficient for a retired Officer to have the possession of his own house. The respondent raised a plea that the appellant wanted enhanced rent. I wonder how this plea was substantiated either in evidence or in the averments of the appellant on: record. In fact the appellant has made no reference to the enhancement of the rent at any time. Even otherwise relying on 1980 S C M R.(?) it may be held that the demand of a higher rent by itself does not cause any doubt in the bona fide requirement of the landlord. It may be observed that the respondent is a lonely figure and he is also a retired Officer and his need indeed are limited. Considering that the respondent belongs to a different nomenclature and cultural group, the need of the appellant, for the accommodation of his daughters of marriageable ages, would be paramount. The moot point in this case is whether the appellant needs in good faith the premises to accommodate his large family and for having an office for engineering consultancy. In view of the evidence on record and the aspects considered above, I feel that the need of the appellant is bona fide and is; in good faith. There are authorities which have laid down the tests by which the bona fide could be inferred. None knows the mind of a man but however as the facts stand the appellant needs the house in question in an old age with a large family around him. The respondent is lonely belonging to a different cultural group.

6. Considering the facts on record, I would allow the appeal and set aside the order of. the learned Rent Controller. The respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question within a period of three months from this order. There will be no order as to costs. M. z. M. Appeal allowed.