1984 PLP 2849 (CLC)

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑=‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑"Rent"‑‑Definition‑‑Gas charges‑‑Words "other charges" mentioned in definition of rent, held, included gas charges‑‑Gas charges not paid by tenant‑‑Finding of Rent Controller on ground of default, upheld.‑[Words and phrases, (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal requirement Landlord including requirement of married daughter, her husband and children as his personal requirement without showing that married daughter living with him since her marriage or any other explanation therefore‑‑Landlord's personal requirement, held, would not include requirement, of his daughter, her husband or children. (c) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVI1 of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Personal requirement Present accommodation in occupation of landlord sufficient to accommodate his requirement‑‑Finding of Rent Controller accepting ground of personal requirement reversed. (d) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Ejectment‑‑Default in payment of rent proved against tenant‑‑Ejectment order upheld. This is an appeal against the order dated 29th August, 1981 passed by the learned XIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No.5355/80, ordering of ejectment of the appellant on the grounds of default and personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal. 2.(a) In support of the above appeal Mr. Muhammad Idris, learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows: (i) That since no receipt for the rent or for the gas charges was issued, factually there was no default. (ii) That since the married daughter with her husband and 4 children were brought to the premises where the respondent was residing about 4‑5 months prior to the date of recording of the evidence on 4th January,1981, the personal requirement was not proved. (b) On the other hand Mr. M. Qaiser Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent has contended as under:‑ (i) That the respondent has not alleged non‑payment of rent, which indicates that the plea of the respondent that the gas charges have not been paid from November, 1978 seems to be correct. Furthermore, the respondent's statement on the above question remained unrebutted as no cross‑examination was directed on the above point. (ii) That under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the personal requirement of a landlord includes the requirement of his any child including a daughter, and, therefore, the personal requirement of the respondent stands proved, particularly in view of the fact that the respondent's son was about to be married.

3. Adverting to the question of default, it may be observed that in para. 2 of the rent application it has been averred that in addition to the payment of rent, the appellant was to pay Rs.20 per month as Sui Gas charges, which he paid upto October, 1978. The respondent in his written statement has not denied the fact that the Sui Gas charges at the above rate were payable. No question was put in the cross‑examination to the 'respondent by the learned counsel for the appellant suggesting that factually Sui Gas charges were paid even after the period commencing from October, 1978. It may be observed that the definition of rent given in clause (i) of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 includes, water charges, electricity charges and such other charges, which are payable by the tenant. The words, "other charges" p would include Sui Gas charges. The factum that the Sui Gas charges were not paid from October, 1978 stands proved. The rent case was filed on 20th September,1980. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of default seems to be correct.

4. As regards the personal requirement, it may be observed that in the cross‑examination the respondent admitted that at the time of letting out the premises in dispute, he had 5 members of the family. He has further admitted that about 4‑5 months back he had brought his married daughter alongwith her husband and 4 children to the premises in dispute, which has 5 rooms plus dining and drawing rooms. In this affidavit in evidence he has given up the break up of the number of his family i.e. himself, the wife, the mother and an unmarried son and an unmarried daughter and one married daughter alongwith her husband and her 4 children. If we exclude the members of the family of the married daughter, the respondent has only 5 members in his family living 5 rooms plus dining and drawing rooms. Nothing has been brought on record to explain as to why the respondent had to provide accommodation to his married daughter, who was admittedly living with her husband and 4 children separately. It was not the case of the respondent that the married daughter was living with him since the time of her marriage. In this view of the matter, the married daughter was not part of the respondent's family. I am inclined to hold that it was incumbent upon the respondent to have brought something on record to explain as to why he had to provide accommodation to his' married daughter, her husband and 4 children. Since no co‑gent reason has been shown, I am of the view that in the absence of any plausible reason the respondent's personal requirement will not include his .married daughter, her husband and 4 children, who admittedly were putting up separately after the marriage. The present accommodation in occupation of the respondent, namely 5 rooms plus dining and drawing rooms is sufficient to accommodate his 5 members of the family and also his would be daughter- in‑law. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement seems to be not inconsonance with the evidence on record. I would, therefore, reverse the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal requirement.

5. Since I have maintained the order under appeal on the ground of default, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the appellant is allowed 4 months time from today to vacate the premises on the condition that the appellant shall continue to pay rent regularly to the respondent. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period of 4 months, the learned‑Rent Controller shall issue a writ of the ejectment without further notice to the appellant. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.