1988 PLP 1316 (MLD)

It is an application under section 20(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for inspection. The similar application was filed by the appellant on 4‑8‑1980 before the learned Rent Controller which was dismissed by him. The local inspection is primarily meant to understand the evidence on record. After perusal of the record of the case I do not feel the inspection necessary. The application is rejected.

2. These are two appeals bearing Nos.569‑570/1987 filed by the appellant/applicant/landlady against the respondents, namely Sardar Khan and Kaley Khan to respect of two ejectment cases disposed of by one single order dated 20‑4‑1987 by the learned Court No.11I of Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (South), Karachi, rejecting the said cases. Hence I propose to dispose of these two appeals by this judgment.

3. The facts giving rise to these appeals, briefly stated, are that the appellant is the landlady of a building situated on Plot No.1961/77 Shah Baig Lane, Lyari Quarters, Karachi which was purchased by her m 1986. The respondents were tenants in respect of one room each at the time of purchase of the building. The appellant on 12‑1‑1977 filed two applications against the respondents for ejectment on the ground of personal use and default. The then learned Rent Controller allowed the said applications on the ground of personal need only. The respondents appear to have filed First Rent Appeals bearing Nos.659‑660 of 1984, m this Court which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 19‑11‑1985, remanding the case to the learned Rent Controller with a direction that the parties be allowed an opportunity to lead their evidence on the issue of personal bona fide need. Both the parties, thereupon, led their evidence before the learned Rent Controller. The said applications for ejectment have now been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 20‑4‑1987 which is now challenged in these appeals.

4. Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the premises in question consists of eight rooms 5 on the ground floor and 3 on the first floor, and not eleven rooms as held by the learned Rent Controller. According to him, therefore, there is misreading of evidence. It was further submitted by him that the appellant has got a large family consisting of two school‑going daughters, two sons, Zafar and Sabir aged about 12 and 15 years respectively, and one son Abdul Rashid aged 24 years and one son Abdul Latif who has been married during the proceedings. The appellant is in occupation of one room only which is quite insufficient to accommodate the said family. Had the facts been such as stated by the counsel, I would have at once agreed with the learned counsel and allowed these appeals, but the facts which have come on record are that the appellant got possession of 4 rooms through Court of the learned Rent Controller, against which no appeals were filed by the other 4 tenants and the possession of one room was handed over by another tenant. So, according to respondents, the appellant is now in possession of additional five rooms besides four rooms she has been occupying since before.

5. Mr. Muhammad Umar Qureshi learned counsel for both the respondents submitted that the building consists of eleven rooms as stated in P.T.I. Form of the Excise and Taxation Department which shows that the building comprises of eleven rooms. The learned Rent Controller has placed his reliance on this P.T.I. and come to the conclusion that the building consists of eleven rooms. In the presence of the P.T.I. issued for the year 1978‑79, which is an official document I and went unchallenged, I am also of the same conclusion that the building consisted of eleven rooms. The appellant is, therefore, in occupation of 9 rooms which seems to be quite sufficient for her and her family.

6. Mr.Fai7anul Haq submitted that all the five rooms are an damaged condition but no one has been produced by the appellant to describe the condition of the said rooms. On the other hand the P.T.I., referred to above, shows the condition of the building as fair. Furthermore, in the counter‑affidavit filed by the respondents in reply to the application for inspection moved by the appellant in the lower Court as well as this Court, it has been averred by the respondents that the roofs of the said rooms have been damaged by the appellant herself, in order to make out a case for herself. The application for ejectment was filed in 1977, which contains no such averment about. the condition of the building. In fact, the conduct of the appellant is also questionable inasmuch as that in her affidavit dated 6‑2‑1986 filed by her in evidence the appellant concealed the fact of having taken over possession of the other five rooms which could only be revealed through her cross‑examination. On the basis of the facts on record, I feel inclined to agree with the submission of the counsel for the respondents that the other rooms which were got vacated and taken possession of by the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings were damaged by the appellant herself. In any case, Mr.Muhammad Umar Oureshi learned counsel for the respondents voluntarily offered that the two of the damaged rooms, in lieu of vacating the two rooms in question, may be given to them which would be repaired by them at their own costs. The counsel for the appellant, after consulting the appellant, who is present in Court refused to accept the said offer.

7. There is yet another fact which has been duly noticed by the learned Rent Controller that during pendency of the proceedings, her husband, Abdul Karim died on 23‑7‑1983, as per death certificate annexed as `C', produced in this appeal, and the property bearing NoAK‑6/4/88‑S Shah Baig Lines Lyari Quarters, has been inherited by the appellant and her children. The said property according to the statement of appellant, if occupied by a brother of the deceased. It is ex‑gratin, as submitted by Mr.Faizanul Haque before me.

8. For reasons disclosed above, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to prove her need bona fide. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./A‑295/K Appeals dismissed.