1985 PLP 1107 (MLD)

These First Rent Appeals arise from the orders of the learned IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby he dismissed the eviction applications of the appellant. As both these appeals filed by the appellant /landlord against the respondents/ tenants are in respect of different tenements of a house, they are being disposed of by a composite judgment. The facts which given rise to these appeals are that the appellant is the owner of double storeyed House No. 21/5 'B' Area, Liaquatabad, Karachi and the respondents are tenants in respect of a portion of first floor of the said premises at the monthly rent of Rs.80 and Rs.100 respectively. The appellant filed Eviction Applications Nos. 5108 and 5109 of 1978 against the respondents on the ground of personal requirement. The respondents resisted the eviction application. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- (1) Whether the applicant requires the premises in good faith for his use and the use of his family members ? (2) What should the order be ? The appellant examined himself and his son Mushtaque Ahmed. In rebuttal the respondents examined themselves. The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, decided issue No. 1 in the negative vide his order, dated 30-1-1982 and dismissed the applications. The appellant being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, dated 30-1-1982 has preferred these appeals on the grounds mentioned in the memos. of appeals. Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the appellant has established his personal requirement and the learned Rent Controller has misread the evidence on record. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Jabbar, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the appellant has not established his personal requirement in the instant cases and the orders of the learned Rent Controller are in accord with the evidence on record. The sole question for determination in the instant case is whether the appellant has satisfied the legal requirement that the disputed premises are needed by him for his own use. In the present case the appellant has stated in his eviction application that he is in occupation of the ground floor of the disputed premises of two rooms and has a large number of family members including children of marriageable ages and had to be married as such he required it in good faith for the occupation of his children. He appeared in the witness-box and has stated that he was in Government service as an Assistant in Health Division at Islamabad and retired from service on 24-10-1977 and thereafter he came to Karachi alongwith his family and had been requesting the respondents since then to vacate the portions in their occupation but they avoided to vacate on one pretext or the other. He has further stated that prior to arrival, one of his sons namely Mukhtar Ahmed alongwith his family and one of appellant's daughters used to live in the ground floor. At the time of filing of the affidavit-in-evidence there were eleven members of his family including himself and his mother living in the ground floor. He also produced photostat copies of ration card. He has also stated that one of his sons Mushtaque Ahmed who is also living with him has to be married and is to be accommodated. The appellant has replied that he has rightly mentioned in his eviction application that he is in possession of two rooms. The appellant to a suggestion has replied that it is incorrect to say that store room is a proper room like living room but the area of store room is 8' x 10'. To another suggestion he has stated that store room cannot be used as a living room. The appellant also filed affidavit-in-evidence of his son Mushtaque Ahmed. He has fully supported his father's version and has also stated that marriage could not be performed for want of accommodation. To a question in cross-examination the appellant's son Mushtaque Ahmed has stated that he is in service of Postal Life Insurance Karachi since last two years and has not been provided any Government quarter. On the other hand, the only evidence adduced by the respondents in rebuttal was that the appellant is in occupation of three big rooms. The respondents have stated that appellant has four sons (three adults and one minor), two daughters (one adult and one minor). One of his sons is married and he is in Middle East. Another son is in Government service at Islambad. One of the respondents (Abdul Rehman) denied a suggestion in cross-examination that one of the sons of the appellant is employed in Postal Life Insurance Karachi and his marriage is hauled up for want of proper accommodation. To another question he had replied that the ground floor consists of two big rooms, one small room and one verandah. The other respondent (Tahir Hussain) to a suggestion in cross-examination has stated that Mushtaque Ahmad is now residing in Karachi. The appellant's third son and fourth son are residing with the appellant. To another suggestion he has stated that it is not a fact that there are two rooms and one verandah and one store room. It is well-settled legal position that assertion about requirement of the appellant for his personal requirement has been fully supported in appellant's deposition and his son's deposition and nothing has been brought out in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal which could show that claim of personal requirement for himself and his family is to be false or is based on wrong statements. The evidence of the appellant in the instant case fulfilled the standard laid down in the case of Hassan Khan v. Mst. Munawar Begum P L D 1976 Kar.

832. The, dictum laid down in the above case was approved by the Honble Supreme Court. The finding of the learned Rent Controller is devoid of any force. It is an admitted position that the appellant has eleven family members and are living in two rooms on the ground floor. The accommodation in occupation of the appellant is not sufficient. The learned counsel for the respondents lastly urged before me that there are three rooms on the ground floor which are sufficient for the requirement of the appellant. There is no substance in the argument. The respondents nowhere in their evidence have proved that there are three rooms on the ground floor. According to the evidence the appellant b has a family of 11 members including children, some of whom are of marriageable age. The need of his family regarding suitable accommodation for all the members thereof cannot be met with the existing accommodation, with him. The evidence led from his side was enough to prove his bona fide. The result is that the finding of the learned Rent Controller is reversed. The appeals were allowed by a short order, dated 14-4-1985 and the above are the reasons of the short order. The respondents are, however, allowed two months time from 14-4-1985 to vacate the premises. A.A. Appeal allowed.