1988 PLP 1594 (MLD)

This appeal is directed against an order dated 24‑3‑1986 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi m Rent Case No. 31 of 1983 declining the present appellant's application on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the rent case the appellant examined her husband attorney Muhammad Swaleheen and married son Sharif Ahmed and one Matin Ahmed, a resident of the locality, whereas the respondent examined herself. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the above rent application by the above impugned order. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It seems that the building in question is constructed on 120 sq. yeds plot. The appellant has three rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor. The respondent is in possession of one room according to the respondent but two rooms according to the appellant. Be that as it may, it has been proved that the appellant has five sons out of them three are married and living with the appellant, three daughters out of them one is married. In my view, since the factum that married sons are living with the appellant has not been even challenged in the cross‑examination the appellant was able to prove her personal requirement. A family comprising of parents, three married sons, two unmarried daughters, two unmarred sons and one married daughter cannot lead a comfortable life in five rooms. However, it was A urged by Mr.Shamim Ahmed Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent that during the pendency of the above appeal the appellant has been able to obtain two rooms from Dr.Gulzar, whereas according to the appellant's husband, who is present in Court, these are not rooms but are shops in which he is carrying on business as he is retired from Pak. P.W.D.

3. I am inclined to hold that there was sufficient material on record on the basis of which the finding of the learned Rent Controller should have been in favour of the appellant. The factum that he got possession of two rooms or two B shops during the pendency of the above appeal even it is to be taken into consideration would not nullify the personal requirement of the appellant keeping in view the number of the members of the family.

4. I would, therefore, reverse the order of the learned Rent Controller and would allow the application of the appellant. However, I grant four months, time to the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./Z‑52/K Appeal allowed.