1987 PLP 1722 (CLC)

S. Hamid Ali for Appellant. S.M. Aslam for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 14th and 15th of April, 1987. Appellant Hafeezullah has preferred this appeal against order of his eviction from a residential premises on Plot No. 4/930, Liaquatabad, Karachi passed by the learned IXth Senior Civil Judge/ Controller, Karachi, on 22‑5‑1984, in Rent Case No. 192/79 filed by the respondent /landlord Allahdin. The rent case was filed on two grounds (i) default in payment of rent from March, 1978, and (ii) personal requirement of the landlord. The learned Controller did not find default in payment of rent, while he accepted the plea that the respondent /landlord bona fidely needed the rented premises for his own use and passed the impugned order of eviction. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent had been living in a Government Quarter and he did not disclose the circumstances which had led him to shift to the rented premises. He has relied upon the cases reported in P L D 1985 Kar. at pages 524, 639 and 714; 1985 CLC 1053. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent has urged that the respondent /landlord did not have sufficient accommodation in the Government Quarter and he desired to shift to his own premises and bona fide need was made out. He has relied upon the cases reported in 1981 S C M R 979(1) and 1985 C L C 1518. Admittedly, the respondent /landlord has been residing in a Government quarter. He did not disclose in the rent application the circumstances which had made him to shift to his rented premises. He stated in his affidavit filed in evidence that he needed the premises for himself and his family consisting of adult members. He did not disclose the number of his family members. The appellant denied that the respondent bona fidely needed the premises for himself and his family members and stated that the respondent had better houses to live in. He stated in his affidavit in evidence that the rented premises was built on a small piece of land measuring about 40 sq. yds. and it could not serve the purpose of the respondent. Where the landlord seeks ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he needs the rented premises for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children, he has to prove that he does need the premises in good faith. In the instant case, the respondent/ landlord did not disclose the circumstances to show that he needed the rented premises for his own use in good faith; and failing that he could not succeed in obtaining eviction order. The learned Controller did not give due consideration to this aspect of the case while passing the impugned order of eviction. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel are based on distinguishable facts. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of eviction is set aside with no order as to costs. The appeal was allowed by short order dated 15‑4‑1987. These are the reasons therefor. H.B.T./H/17‑K Appeal allowed.