P L D 1980 Karachi 197 (PLP)

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Tharparkar, dated 16th January, 1976, who confirmed the. order passed by the learned Rent . Controller on 25th September, 1994 allowing the ejectment application filed by the respondent. '. The brief facts leading up to this case are that a property bearing No. 877 (Custodian No. B/166), Shahi Bazar, Mirpurkhas, was transferred by the Settlement Department to the respondent who leased it out to Ilahi Bux father of the present appellant on 14th October, 1963. 111ahi Bux died in 1967-68 and the appellant inherited the tenancy of the house at an agreed rent of Rs. 12.50 per month.

3. Earlier to the filing of the ejectment application leading up to this appeal two -ejectment applications were filed by the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent, nuisance to the neighbours and theft of some material of the house but these applications met- with no success. The third application from which this appeal emanates was filed in 1972 on the ground that the house was needed by the respondent for use by his son who was major and was also going to be married soon. According to him, the accommodation available in the house of the respondent was not sufficient to accommodate his son and his newly-wedded wife. The application was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the main interest of the respondent was to get the house vacated so that the same may fetch a higher price when it was sold. Before proceeding further I may refer to the fact that the son of the respondent got married during the pendency of this third application. On the issues framed in this case the learned Rent Controller recorded evidence of the parties and allowed the application on 25th September, 1974. An appeal preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Tharparkar on 16th January, 1976.

4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the application are two fold. Firstly, he has contended that there was conflicting evidence about the accommodation available in the house of the respondent and therefore he had made an application to the Rent Controller to inspect the site which was not allowed by him which ultimately caused him prejudice. The second contention is that the conduct of the respondent has not been above board as he had all along been trying to dislodge the appellant and had filed two ejectment applications prior to the making of application. The attention of the learned counsel-for the appellant was invited to the fact that there was a concurrent finding against him by both the Courts below who had held that the property in question was required by the respondent for the bona fide personal use of his son and .this finding could not be disturbed in second appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant candidly conceded hat this was the main obstacle in his way which be could not possibly cross. I have examined the orders of the-Rent Controller as well as that of the District Judge and found that both of them have thoroughly discussed ohe evidence produced by the parties before reaching the findings which have been impugned in this appeal. I do not find any lacuna in the evidence produced by the respondent to prove that the house was needed by him for the bona fide personal use of his son. The other ground of the learned counsel for the appellant that the conduct of the respondent has not been above board as he had all along been trying to dislodge the appellant is also not worthy of any consideration because in both the previous applications the ground of bona fide personal use had not been taken. This ground was taken for the first time in the third application for ejectment and it was successfully proved by the respondent. Thus, both the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are devoid of force and do not merit any consideration.

5. For the foregoing reasons I find no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. . The appellant is given four months time to put the respondent in vacant possession of the house in question subject to his depositing rent in the Court of Rent Controller on the agreed date. . s. G. D.??????????? Appeal dismissed.