1986 PLP 905 (MLD)

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals briefly are that Niaz Muhammad is landlord of House bearing No. R‑424/17 whereas Shamimul Hassan Naqvi is tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.

180. On 5‑2‑1979 landlord filed Rent Application under section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and default of payment of Rent. The tenant filed written statement on 12‑4‑1979 admitting the tenancy. He however, denied that the premises were required bona fide for use of the respondent. He took the plea that landlord wants enhanced rent and he is being harassed by him. The Rent Controller on pleadings of the parties framed following issues: (1) Whether tenant (Shamimul Hasan Naqvi) committed default? (2) Whether landlord (Niaz Muhammad) requires the premises in good faith for his own use?

3. The landlord examined himself and in support he produced his sons Faiz Muhammad and Muhammad Ishaque. The tenant examined no witness except himself. The Rent Case No. 688 of 1979 proceeded and finally the Rent Controller, came to the conclusion that tenant has not committed any default but on 2nd issue he held that landlord has been able to prove requirement, therefore, he directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to landlord within a period of 119 days from the order.

4. Niaz Muhammad landlord brought another Rent Application on 16‑3‑1980 (as Rent Case No. 1975 of 1980) under section 14 of the Ordinance for the same premises on the ground that he is going to retire from service, therefore, same tenant be summarily ejected. He wanted to avail of benefit of section

14. The written statement was filed by the tenant who took plea that application is barred by section 14(2) of the Ordinance as landlord in occupation of a House No. D‑15/36 near E‑147/3, Jecob Lines Karachi owned by him. The Rent Controller without recording evidence dismissed the Rent Application of landlord and his findings are that landlord is in occupation of a house in Jacob Line, therefore, he is not entitled to take benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance. Niaz Muhammad landlord has filed appeal against that order (Appeal No. 729 of 1980).

5. In the first instance, I propose to deal with Appeal No. 748 of 1980 against order of eviction passed in a Rent Case No. 688 of 1979. In. this case on 1st issue it has beer held that there is no default in payment of rent. The landlord has not filed any appeal on this issue therefore, it is not necessary to discuss this point. Now there remains only issue of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord.

6. Niaz Muhammad landlord has stated that he has two sons and two daughters. His two daughters and one son are married bout still he has to get one son married. The oldest son with his family is residing with him. He has deposed that marriage of his younger son is held up for want of accommodation. The presently his entire family is residing in one room house` which is not sufficient for his family. He has denied ‑the suggestion that he wants to eject the tenant in order to get the rent enhanced. P.W. Faiz Muhammad who is son of landlord has stated in his affidavit in evidence that he along with his three children and family residing in one room house with his father Which is not sufficient. He has deposed that marriage of his younger brother could not be arranged as they have no accommodation P.W. Muhammad Ishaque is also son of Niaz Muhammad landlord. He has corroborated the version of his father and brother Faiz Muhammad and stated that present accommodation is not sufficient and they are living in one room, which is in miserable condition, and his marriage has been postponed because of non‑availability of accommodation.

7. Shamimul Hassan Naqvi, tenant in his affidavit‑in‑evidence stated that landlord is in possession of a house in Jacob Lines and house in which he is residing is sufficient for his family and he does not require the premises in question for his own use and use of his children.

8. Mr. Syed Zahid Hussain Burhani, Advocate for appellant contended that landlord has filed this case as he demands an enhanced rent from the tenant, which he has refused. His contention is that landlord owns house in Karachi. He partly argued on 1‑4‑1984, and appeal was adjourned to 9‑4‑1984, but on that date he remained absent without any intimation. Mr. S. D. Rana who was appearing on behalf of respondent, landlord started arguments and he has contended Niaz Muhammad landlord had proved his case of bona fide personal requirement. He has relied upon the cases 1982 C L C Kar. 935, where it has been held that demand for enhancement of rent by landlord is not by itself sufficient to cast any doubt about his personal bona fide requirement. In case of Saban Mal v. Kikaram alias Hemandas 1973 SCMR 185, it has held that if a landlord possesses more than one house in the same Urban Area, the choice as to the house in which he would like to live himself is surely a matter within his prerogative and discretion of landlord does not give either to the tenant or to the Rent Controller the power to determine where the landlord should personally reside. On personal bona fide requirement I also refer a case P L D 1982 Kar. 182 Mr. Justice Naimuddin, held that: "A landlord's desire to live in his or her own house is natural A move so when he or she as in this case will monetarily benefited therefrom."

10. Supreme Court in Abdul Latif v. Fakir Muhammad 1982 S C M 1046 observed that landlord is justified in requiring his own premise for personal use and lastly, reference could be made to a case o Rajab Ali v. Darius B Kanda Walla and, others P L D 1984 Kar. 14, 1 where it was held that landlord's desire to live in his own house is natural and suitability or sufficiency of accommodation for landlord held cannot be determined by tenant. Mr. Justice Munawar Ali Khan ha thoroughly discussed the case‑law on personal bona fide requirement in this case.

11. The upshot of the above discussion is that from the evidence o record the landlord has proved his case of bona fide persona requirement. The Rent Controller has rightly accepted the Ren Application of landlord and ordered the eviction of tenant (Shamimu Hassan). I, therefore, find no substance in this appeal (Appeal No. 738 of 1980) therefore; I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

12. The Rent Controller has dismissed application of Niaz Muhammad landlord (Rent Case No. 167 of 1980) on the ground that he cannot avail of benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance because landlord is residing in premises, which are to be regularised in view of announcement by Government. In this case landlord has in his notice dated 17‑12‑1979, stated that he is residing in a but which is unauthorised accommodation and contention of the 'tenant is that landlord is in occupation of House No. D‑15/36, near H. 147/3 Jacob Line which is owned by hi but no documentary evidence has been produced by tenant. On the contrary landlord has come forward with clean hands that he is livin in a but as unauthorised person. The presumption of the Rent Controlle in anticipating that Government will regularise all unauthorised colonies is not correct. He has to see from the record and it is incumbent upon the tenant to prove that landlord is in occupation of a building owner by him in any locality. I am of the view that order of the Rent Controller is contrary to facts and law. Niaz Muhammad landlord ca avail benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance till contrary is proved. The order of Rent Controller dated 24‑8‑1980 passed in Rent Case No. 1673 of 1980 is set aside. Consequently the appeal of Niaz Muhamma (Appeal No. 729 of 1980) is accepted with no order as to costs. M .Y.H. Eviction maintained.