1989 PLP 566 (MLD)

From the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed:‑ (1) ?????? Whether the applicant No.1 requires the premises in question for personal bona fide use and for the use of her children? (2) ?????? What should the order be? The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties decided issue. No.1 in affirmative, and consequently the ejectment application was allowed. The present appeal is directed against the said order of ejectment. Mst. Yasmeen Begum applicant No.1 has stated in her affidavit?in-?evidence that she and the other applicants are owners of the building constructed on Plot No.18 Block‑11, Nazimabad, Karachi. and the opponent is tenant in respect‑ of first floor of the said building on monthly rent of Rs.300, she has produced photostat copy of Mutation letter as Ex A‑

1. That they are 10 in number and all of them are heirs of deceased Syed Tajamal Hussain and some of the major members are married and have their own family members including wife and children. They are 15 in number and are in bona fide need of entire house in good faith for their use and occupation.' That the accommodation available on first floor will not be sufficient to accommodate their family and therefore they have filed ejectment application on the ground of personal bona fide need against the tenants of the ground floor also. That in view of the shortage of accommodation the members of the family have not been able to adjust themselves and some of them are staying at the houses of others and have lost their‑peace of mind. That she is putting at House No.549 Block‑13, F.R. Area, Karachi, and the applicants are the sole owners of the suit property. She does not know Mst. Razia Begum nor any agreement was entered into in respect of the property in dispute with her or her husband late Sved Tajamal Hussain The Annexures `B' and `C' mentioned in the written statement have not been produced in Court nor copies thereof supplied to them, and therefore she cannot say anything, about those documents. In cross‑examination she has deposed that she is living at Karachi permanently. She is living with her son Najeeb. He is 27/28 years of age. Her son Saud and other sons used to visit her at her house. Her all sons are living in house of her son Ahmed Waqar. She has six sons namely Ahmed Waqar, Ahmed Najeeb, Saudur Rehman, Saiful Rehman; Sheju Rehman and Shafiq Rehman. She has three daughters namely Zahecr Sultana, Tanveer Fatima and Tasleem Fatima. Her two sons and two daughters are married. Her daughter Zaheer Sultana is living at North Nazimabad, while Tanveer Fatima is living at Dubai. Her all sons are getting education at Rawalpindi. Sometime she comes at Karachi, and some times she goes to Pindi to lookafter her sons. Her son is living with her in house bearing No.549/13 F.B. Area, Karachi. He has Plastic factory. She does not know from whom her husband had purchased property in suit. She does not know Abdul Rasheed. They never resided in demised premises. From beginning the above property remained on rent. She did not collect rent from tenants herself or through her husband. She has property in Nazimabad No.3 in which there are 4 shops and one residential accommodation on first floor. In which there are 4 rooms, except this she has no other property. Her husband had opened workshop in the year 1969‑70 and was running some business at Pindi till his death. He was doing business alone. His two sons Waqar and Najeeb also used to help him. She can: produce only Najeeb at present. She gave birth to one son at Pindi while remaining sons were born at Karachi. She is living at Pindi since last 16 years. Saud, and Waqar are running the workshop. Her son Najeeb is running plastic factory. She has denied a suggestion that she did not require the premises bona fide for her use and use of her children but she wanted higher rent. She has also denied a suggestion. That she has sufficient accommodation at Karachi and Pindi. Ahmed Najeeb Abbasi respondent No.3 has deposed in his affidavit that he resides in Karachi since last four years. He is matriculate. He passed 'matriculation from Pindi in the year 1972. There are three t‑‑pants and he has filed cases against all the tenants. Rafruddin is their tenant but he did not know the names of others. He did not know the Courts in which the rent cases are pending. Ejectment Order has passed been passed against Rafiuddin. He is living with the applicant since last four‑years. His brothers Ahmed Waqar, Saudu Rehman and Saiful Rehman are living at Karachi so also his sister Tasleem. His Identity Card was prepared at Pindi because he had no house at Karachi. They are living is Satellite Town Rawalpindi since last 8 years. The said house is on rent. He has no rent receipt of the said house and cannot produce rent receipts. His brother Ahmed Waqar used to pay rent. He has denied a suggestion that they own property at Pindi and four other properties. He has denied that he was residing at Satellite Town Pindi. Workshop at Pindi is on rent. He has denied a suggestion that they are permanently residing at Pindi and have come Karachi since last 2/3 months. He came from Pindi to Karachi 2 or 3 months before. There was no tenancy agreement between them and the opponent. He did not know as to who rented the house to the opponent. He has six brothers and three sisters. Two sisters are married. His brothers are at Pindi. Miss Tasleem is at Pindi. Saiful Rehman and Shafiq Rehman are in 9th in Ideal School Rawalpindi. Miss. Tasleem is not studying. He is living at House No.549/13 F.B. Area, Karachi. He is not living on rent. He does not know about area of his house but there are four rooms. He has denied that the house in question is not required by them for their personal bona fide use. Zameer Ahmed attorney of .the appellant has filed affidavit‑in‑evidence wherein he has stated that previously the applicant had filed a rent case hearing No.3542 of 1984 and obtained ex parte judgment. After the execution application was filed, they filed appeal before the High Court and the matter was remanded back to the Court. That the applicant had failed to inform him about the death of the owner of this property. He came to know aboLt the death of the owner of the demised premises during the pendency of this case. That the statutory notice as envisaged by Section 18 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was not served and therefore the application was liable to be dismissed. That the applicant is not living at Karachi, ‑and most of the applicants are married, specially the two daughters are married and. they are residing separately with their husbands and therefore the question of bona fide use for them does not arise. That the demised premises were not rented to him by the applicant nor she collected ally rent from him right from beginning. She had not spent anything towards the construction of the house, when he had spent about Rs.75,000 over construction of floor, wall, grill, Sui‑gas, electric meter, water connection and laying of sewaragt, system. That in similar other cases she has admitted that she has a house at Rawalpindi and her sons are doing business and running their own workshop. That the applicant has another house in the same municipal limits of Nazimabad. That the above house is not needed by the applicant. The main purpose is to sell the house and mint money. In the year 1984, the applicant alongwith sow, other male members came at his residence and negotiated for the sale of this house and her demand was Rs.8 lacs, whets the market price of the house was not more than Rs.3 lass. Hence the deal was not completed. However, the applicant demanded increase of rent which was on the higher side and therefore a dispute arose between the parties and he started depositing rent in the Court. The applicant has failed to prove that she requires the above house for her personal bona fide use. She always comes from Rawalpindi and goes back to Rawalpindi as all her children are studying in Rawalpindi and are premanently settled there. The opponent was not the tenant of the applicant but he was tenant of M/s. Najeeb Borther and T.H. Abbasi from the beginning: Some portions of the houses have been vacated and they are sufficient for the accommodation of the applicant. In cross‑examination he has deposed that opponent is his elder brother. He is not in Karachi since last 1/2, months. Neither he nor opponent has tennacy agreement in writing with T.H. Abbasi. His Munshi used to collect rent from him. He did not remember the name of Munshi. He does not know whether Najeeb is son of Tajamal Hussain who was owner of the premises in question. He does not know whether applicant No.1 is widow of Tajamal Hussain. After notice of ejectment application he came to know that the applicants are owners of demised premises. He has not deposited rent in their names. He had spent Rs.70,000 to Rs.75,000 on repairs. In written statement the amount of expenditure is mentioned at Rs.15,

000. He has denied a suggestion that he had not spent Rs.15,000 or 75,000 on repairs. He had not taken any permission from ladies or applicants for carrying these repairs. He had no written permission from landlord Tajmal Hussain. He does not know numbers of house of applicant given in his affidavit‑in‑evidence. He did not know whether applicant is residing at B/549IBlock‑13 F.B. Area. Again stated that she was not residing at Karachi. He does not know the names of applicants children. I have heard Mr: Khalid Athar learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and have gone through the R & P of the case. It has been contended by Mr. Khalid Athar learned counsel appearing for the appellant that one other ejectment application filed by the respondents with regard to half portion having 4 rooms was allowed.by the Court. That the respondents had 4 roomed house in Nazimabad No. 2 and at F.B. Area. I, therefore, in all they are in possession of six rooms. It was further coptesded that from the admissions of the respondents No. 1 and her son it is clear that except her son Ahmed Najeeb, all the sons residing at Rawalpindi. As far as the daughters were concerned, two were, married and they are residing with their husbands separately, while the.3rd one namely Tasleem Fatima is residing with her brothers at Rawalpindi. Two of the brothers are carrying on business and running workshop at Rawalpindi, while three are studying at Pindi and therefore the respondents do not require the premises in question bona fide. Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the opponent/appellant' has not denied that the family of the respondents consisted of 15 members. That the children of applicant Ahmed Naleeb were also residing with him at Karachi, and therefore the respondents have proved that they required the premises in question for their personal bona fide use. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. From the evidence producedby the parties, it is clear that two of the respondents namely Mst. Zaheer Sultana and Tanvir Fatima are married and they are residing with their husbands separately, while Miss Tasleem Fatima respondent No. 10 was minor and was residing at Pindi. It is also an admitted position that out of six sons/respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5,'8 and 9, three are studying at Rawalpindi. Out of remaining sons respondent Ahmed Waqar and Saud are running workshop set?up‑by their late father Tajmal Hussain at Rawalpindi. It is also an admitted position that the house bearing No. 549 713 F.B. Area, consisting of .4 rooms belong to the respondents where respondent Ahmed Najeeb Abbasi and his mother Mst. Yasmeen Begum claimed to have been residing. It is also the case of the appellant that a portion of a house consisting of two rooms has been got vacated by the respondents and therefore there are as many as six rooms in possession of respondent Mst. Yasmeen Begum and Ahmed Najeeb. Admittedly Miss Tasleem Fatima and two sons namely Sheju Rehman and Shafiq Rehman are minors and are studying at Rawalpindi, Mst. Yasmeen has admitted in cross?examination that she lives in Karachi for sometime, and goes to Pindi for sometime to look after her children. Looking to the fact that at least 3 of her children ark minors and two of them are in school, it is only natural that she must be looking after them permanently and she might be visiting her son Ahmed Najeeb occasionally. From the above discussion, it is clear that the accommodation in possession of the respondent Ahmed Najeeb and Mst. Yasmeen Begum is more than sufficient for their needs, and therefore, the ejectment application filed against the appellant clearly appears to be mala fide and not bona fide From the circumstances and the admitted facts, it is clear that the respondents do not require the demised premises for their personal bona fide use. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller and dismiss the ejectment application. I had decided the above appeal on 13‑11‑1988 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./S‑336/K? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed