1985 PLP 233 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1985. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-5-1984 passed by the learned XIXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 572 of 1983 filed by the respondent on two grounds namely, the default for the period commencing from June, 1982 to January, 1983 and personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following three issues: "(1) Whether the opponent has failed to pay rent to the applicant since, June, 1982? If so its effects? (2) Whether the case premises are needed by the applicant for her own and her son's use in good faith? (3) What should the order be?"

2. The respondent examined her son and attorney Iqbal, one Abdul Ghaffar and Tariq son of Dr. Abdul Sattar Chundrigar the father-in-law of P.W. lqbal; whereas the appellant examined himself, his wife Roshan Ara and one Shah Nawaz. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties by the order under appeal allowed the above application on both the grounds. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal. 3.(a)In support of the above appeal Mr. Allauddin Ansari learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows:- (i) That since at no point of time the respondent had issued any rent receipt the learned Rent Controller could not have recorded the finding of default in favour of the respondent in view of the remission of rent through money order being the rent of February, 1983. (ii) That the respondent has failed to prove the bona fide personal requirement of P.W. Iqbal's father-in-law and that factually the respondent has more accommodation in the premises occupied by her at present than the premises in suit. (b) On the other hand Mr. Suleman Kassam learned counsel for the respondent has contended as under:- (i) That according to the respondent's evidence on record whenever P.W. lqbal received rent he gave receipt on a plain paper and that the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence on record have recorded the finding on the question of-default in favour of the respondent. (ii) That there was no legal requirement to prove the personal bona fide requirement of P.W. Iqbal's father-in-law and that even otherwise the above requirement has-been proved.

4. Adverting to the question of default, it may be observed that the appellant himself suggested to the respondents son and attorney lqbal that the rent upto May, 1982 was paid. Furthermore, P.W. Ghaffar who is admittedly related to the appellant has deposed that he had gone to the appellant asking him to clear the arrears but he showed his inability on account of financial difficulties. This statement has also not been challenged in the cross-examination of this witness. I therefore, concur with the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of default.

5. As regards the question of personal requirement there is abundant evidence on record. It has, been proved that the respondent is putting upon the first floor oil, the, lapse belonging to the mother-in-law of her son P.W. Iqbal. It has further been proved that P.W. Iqbal's in-laws with their children were serving in Siera Leone (West 'Africa) and in January, 1982 they have returned from there to settle down permanently in Karachi. This fact has been admitted by the appellant himself in the cross-examination it has also been proved that the respondent does not pay any rent; in respect of the above accommodation. However it was urged by Mr. Allauddin Ansari that it was incumbent upon the respondent to, have proved that P.W. Iqbal's mother-in-law bona fidely required the premises,, arid that, the premises., in possession of the respondent was not suitable for her requirement. It. will suffice to observe that the question in issue before the learned' Rent Controller was the personal bona fide requirement of the respondent and not the personal bona fide requirement of P.W; Iqbals mother-in-law. The respondent in addition to her husband; has four children. Furthermore, it is also not relevant whether the present accommodation in possession of the respondent has more accommodation as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as compared to the tenement in question a admittedly the premises at present in, occupation of the respondent is not owned by her. In my view the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement is also based on sufficient evidence.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, I allow four months time to the appellant on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file execution application before the expiry of the above period of four months. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period of four months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant. H . A . K