1979 PLP 251 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑On the 29th of November 1975, the Rent Controller Quetta accepted the application of the respondent herein and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute situate in Quetta on the ground that he required the same in good faith for his personal use and occupation. The order was affirmed on first appeal rejected by the District Judge Quetta and upheld in second appeal which was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, on the 6th of June 1977 This is a petition for special leave by the petitioner from the impugned order thus passed by the High Court. Briefly the relevant facts are that at first on the 25th of September 1971, the respondent had brought an application for the ejectment of the petitioner from the house in question on the ground of the non‑payment of rent for two months and also because he required the same for the reconstruction of a portion thereof. But eventually, on the 9th of May 1973, that application was dismissed by the Rent Controller as having been withdrawn by the landlord. Afterwards on the 28th of August 1973, the respondent brought second application against the petitioner for his ejectment from the same house in question. In this he alleged that he was putting up in a very small house which was not sufficient for his residential accommodation and that the house in dispute occupied by the petitioner herein was bigger and suitable to meet his requirements. He therefore, submitted that he required the same reasonably and in good faith for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner in his written statement admitted the tenancy but denied the allegations of the respondent. He submitted that the respondent was residing in a house comprising two rooms, one big kitchen and courtyard having other amenities. He has a wife and four minor children (the eldest son was only 10 years old) and the accommodation presently occupied by him was suitable for his requirement. He, however, did not deny that the house in his occupation was comparatively bigger. At the same time he alleged that the application of the respondent for his ejectment was mala fide, inter alia, for the following reasons :‑ "(a) that the existing accommodation of the respondent was suitable for his requirement ; (b) that before this the respondent had made a previous application for his ejectment from the house on the grounds of :‑ (i) non‑payment of rent ; (ii) bona fide reconstruction ; At the time he did not raise any such plea to the effect that the premises was also required by him for his use and occupation. (c) that about III years ago the respondent after building a house consisting of three rooms, just in front of his present accommodation, has leased it out to one Mistri Muhammad Sharif. In the end the petitioner once again denied the allegations and doubted the bona fides of the respondent and alleged that he wanted to pressurise him by this application in order to enhance the rent. At the hearing the respondent landlord produced three witnesses who stated that the house in his occupation is comprising two rooms in which he is putting up along with his family consisting of 8 members in all. In defence the petitioner produced 9 witnesses mainly to show that the respondent owned many other houses in the locality‑which were let on rent by him. One of these he gave on rent to Mistri ‑Muhammad Sharif and a baithak was let out to one Yusaf. On going through the evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller was satisfied that the respondent landlord reasonably required the house in question for his personal use and occupation. He was living with 8 members of his family in a house having two rooms and according to the evidence one of these rooms was leaking and was stored with goods in daily use by him. On the other hand the petitioner was in possession of a bigger house‑in dispute comprising five rooms with all other amenities which was in good faith required by the respondent for his residential use and occupation. The Rent Controller, therefore, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on the 29th of November 1975. The order was affirmed on appeal of the petitioner which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Quetta, on the 28th of August 1976. On going through the evidence he arrived at the conclusion that the respondent landlord has a large family consisting of 8 members and the house in his possession has two rooms of which one was leaking and is stored with goods of daily use. As such the existing accommodation with him was inadequate for his requirements. On the other hand the house occupied by the petitioner is a bigger one having five rooms with all other amenities which was suitable to meet his requirements. His need was thus genuine and bona fide and he was. therefore, entitled to the possession thereof by ejectment of the petitioner. In the second appeal the learned Judge in Chambers took notice of the evidence of the witnesses produced by the petitioner in defence who testified that the respondent had constructed another house which he has leased out to Mistri Muhammad Sharif and had also let out his drawing room to one Yusaf. But in the opinion of the High Court the story of the leasing out of the drawing room related to the distant past. As for the leasing out of the newly‑constructed house it was observed that it also consisted of two rooms only according to the respondent and three rooms according to the petitioner and therefore, it did not offer sufficient accommodation to the landlord to meet his bona fide requirements. In conclusion the High Court held that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below on the main issue between the parties was binding on them. In this petition for special leave to appeal the learned counsel has laid stress to contend before us that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the question as to whether the respondent reasonably and in good faith required the premises in dispute for hi personal use and occupation should have been judged only in the light of the past history of the litigation between the parties and not in isolation. But that according to learned counsel, the three Courts have failed to properly take into consideration the effect of the earlier petition brought by the respondent for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non‑payment of the rent and the construction of a portion of the house and he never took the plea to the effect that he also required the house in good faith for his personal use and occupation. He also submitted that according to the record produced by the Sub‑Inspector Excise Department, Quetta (R. W. 3) the respondent has no less than nine houses belonging to him situated in Quetta and that this fully belied his testimony in the witness box to the effect that he had no other house of his own in the city. He further laid emphasis before us to contend that the respondent has already constructed a new house continuous to the house in dispute which he had later on let out to one Muhammad Sharif instead of himself occupying the same if indeed reasonably and in good faith required any additional accommodation for hi personal us, and occupation. He maintained that the ejectment application by the respondent was a mala fide one and was made with the ulterior object for enhancing the rent. In this connection at the hearing the learned counsel has taken us through the statement of the respondent as his own witness (R. W. 4). The two Courts below have concurred in holding that the house consisting of two rooms only presently occupied by the respondent was not sufficient to accommodate eight members of his family and that he in good faith required the house in dispute consisting of five rooms for his use and occupation. The petitioner has been unable to satisfy us that this concurrent finding of fact was vitiated by any misreading of the evidence on the record. The petitioner also failed to confront the respondent with the averments in his previous eject ment petition and ask for his explanation on the point as to how was it that he had not raised the precise plea in his first application. In this connection we, however, find nothing inconsistent in the case set up by the respondent in the second application for the ejectment of the petitioner. The High Court has also rightly observed that the newly‑constructed house leased out to Mistri Muhammad Sharif consisted of two rooms according to the respondent and three rooms according to the petitioner and decidedly therefore, it did not offer sufficient accommodation to meet the requirement of the respondent and the members of his family. The respondent was not even cross‑examined by the petitioner on his plea to the effect that he had filed this petition for the ulterior motives of enhancing the rent. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.