1989 PLP 616 (CLC)

Being aggrieved by the order dated 16‑14‑1987, passed by Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (East), Karachi, in Rent Case No.676 of 1985, whereby she directed ejectment of the appellant from premises situated on the first floor of House No.263, Behar Muslim Co‑operative Housing Society, Karachi, the appellant has filed this appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

2. On 6‑5‑1981, the respondent filed an application for ejectment against appellant and her brother Fasihuddin Shaikh on the ground of subletting and personal requirement. It was pleaded by the respondent that the disputed premises was originally rented out to Fasihuddin Shaikh, who handed over its possession to appellant without his consent. The respondent is residing on the ground floor of the above premises alongwith following members of family:‑ (i) Mst. Sajida Khatoon (wife) (ii) Haider Imam (son) (iii) Khalida Haider (daughter‑in‑law) (iv) Aisha Haider4 (grand daughter) (v) Shahid Imam (son) (vi) Miss Hamida Malik (daughter) (vii) Arshad Malik (son) (viii) Muhammad Nadeem (son) According to him the accommodation consisting of four rooms which is in their occupation is not suitable to their needs. The marriages of his son Shahid Imam and daughter Hamida Malik were also held up due to paucity of accommodation.

3. The appellant contested both the grounds of eviction by stating that the premises in dispute was originally let out to her brother Fasihuddin Shaikh, but after his migration to America she was accepted as tenant by the respondent. The plea of personal requirement was disputed by the appellant in para No.9 of the written statement in the following words:‑ "The applicant does not require the premises in question bona fide and in good faith for his own occupation and for the occupation of his children and spouse. It is also denied that they ar‑a not living comfortably. It is submitted that the application has been filed with the mala fide motive as the opponent No.2 did not agree to increase of rent to Rs.1,000 per month. The applicant has, therefore, by this application acted to the threats given by him to eject her, if the rent was not increased by her" 4.On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:‑ (1) Whether the opponent No.2 was accepted as a tenant by the applicant? (2) Whether the applicant requires case premises bona fide and in good faith for his own use and occupation and for the occupation of his family members? (3) What should the order be? 5.The respondent has examined himself (P.W.1), while the appellant appeared as her own witness (D.W.1). On the assessment of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No.l in favour of appellant, while issue No.2 was decided against her, giving rise to this appeal. 6.I have heard Mr. Mohammad Naqi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aziz‑ul‑Hassan, learned counsel for respondent.?. Admittedly the disputed premises was rented out to Fasihuddin Shaikh, brother of appellant on 25‑8‑1969, vide (EX./A), about twelve years prior to filing of the ejectment application, out of which this appeal has arisen. According to the landlord he has now a large family and the present accommodation in his occupation is not sufficient to meet their requirement. While determining the bona fide requirements of the landlord his new requirements or his desire to have a better and sufficient accommodation cannot be overlooked. The respondent as his own witness (P.W.1) has stated on oath that he requires the disputed premises in 'good faith' for his own occupation and occupation of his spouse and children. The fact that the landlord is resicAng in four roomed accommodation with eight persons including A son of marriageable age was sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement for the premises in occupation of appellant. 8.The expression "good faith' is an abstract term not capable ofl any rigid definition. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the expression'H 'food faith' is honesty of intention and, therefore, what is required under clau:,e (vii) of subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Sind Rented premises, and although all the details stated in application for ejectment are not disclosed therein, it serves the required purpose. At any rate, this objection was not taken by the appellant at any stage and the same cannot be raised at this stage, specially when the respondent was subjected to a searching cross‑examination.

14. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however,, allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises. H.B.T./R‑74/K Appeal dismissed.