1994 PLP 1131 (CLC)

The appellants contested the matter and filed their written objections wherein they denied that they were defaulters in payment of rent. It was urged that at one time the husband of the respondent had stopped receiving rent and, therefore, from December, 1986, the appellants started depositing rent in the Court of Rent Controller in the Miscellaneous Rent Case. As regards the other two grounds also the appellants had denied the case of the respondent. In support of their respective case, they filed the affidavits‑in‑evidence i.e. one by Mr. Fakhruddin, the husband of the respondent and the other by Tahir Ali, one of the appellants. The rent case was decided in favour of the present respondent and the ejectment was allowed. An appeal preferred by the present appellants being F.RA. No. 53 of 1990 was allowed by this Court and the case was remanded. After remand of the case the respondent also examined one Saifuddin, the landlord of the premises where the respondent alongwith her family is residing at present. The matter then came up for arguments before the Rent Controller and during the course of arguments, the respondent did not press the issues pertaining to default in payment of rent . and conversion of premises from residential to commercial. However, the issue with regard to personal requirement was pressed and the Rent Controller was pleased to allow the rent application on the said ground directing the ejectment of the appellants. Being aggrieved the present appellants have preferred this appeal. I have heard Mr. K.B. Bhutto, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sajjad E. Halal, the learned counsel for the respondent. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the respondent has failed to prove that the personal requirement as claimed by her is ,a bona fide one. He has submitted that rather this ground has been taken by way of punishment to the tenant as the landlady had been attempting to get the premises vacated on other grounds also and the fact that the plea of default was taken and. not pressed subsequently would spell out the mala fides of the landlady. He has also urged that the landlady had refused to accept the rent in order to create a ground of default for ejectment but having failed to achieve this purpose for the reasons that the appellants had started depositing the rent in Court, she with mala fide intention filed the present rent case and this fact has been admitted in cross‑examination. Mr. K.B. Bhutto, learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Rent Controller has erred in allowing the ejectment also on the ground that father‑in‑law of the respondent needed to reside with them who had undergone an eye operation and was presently sleeping in the kitchen of the rented premises which affected his health. As against this Mr.. Sajjad E. Halal, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that admittedly the respondent is living in a rented premises alongwith her family of six members excluding the father‑in‑law. The said premises which are in occupation of the present respondent comprising of two‑bed rooms, one drawing room, kitchen and bath room would not be sufficient for their use. Both the learned counsel have placed reliance on the case‑law. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the case where the evidence on the record shows that the respondent has a family of six members i.e. wife, husband, two sons and two daughters. Of course, one of the witnesses, namely, Saifuddin has stated that one daughter is married and is living with her husband yet the two bed‑rooms could hardly be said to be sufficient for husband, wife two growing sons and one daughter. Mr. K.B. Bhutto, Advocate has placed reliance on the following cases: (i) Faqir Muhammad and others v. Mst. Muhammad Bibi (PL9 1991 SC 590). (ii) Noor Muhammad v. Iqbal Ahmed (1985 CLC 1007). (iii) Mrs. Anthony v. Riaz Ahmed Malik (1985 CLC 1309). (iv) Faheeda Jehan Begum v. Varimdamal (1980 CLC 604). (v) Sultan Press Ltd. v. Muhammad Hassan PLD 1985 Kar. 624). All these cases would not be of any help to the appellants. The principle that has been held in these cases is that a party would be entitled to relief only if he comes to Court with clean hands and in rent cases it is for the landlord to prove his bona fides where he seeks ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. It will not be a mere desire or ipsi dixit of the landlord that ejectment on the ground of personal requirement can be allowed. As compared to this, in the present case the landlady has sufficiently shown that the premises wherein she is residing at present are not sufficient for her requirement and her family and also that she is residing in a rented house, whereas she now wants to shift to house owned by her. The appellants have failed to show that the landlady owns or possesses any other house in the locality or within the town. Mr. Sajjad E. Halai, Advocate for the respondent has placed reliance on the case of M/s. Bata Pakistan Ltd. v. Begum Ashraf Burney (1993 MLD 697). In this case it has been held by my learned brother Nazim Hussain Siddiqi, J., that mere desire of the landlord would not be . sufficient for allowing ejectment on the ground of personal use but if the landlord shows that his requirement is based on cogent reasons and facts are proved then such eviction could be allowed. In this case also his Lordship has held that demand by landlord of increased rent for the demised premises by itself could not be regarded as an act of mala fides of the landlord. He has placed reliance on a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which now is a settled law on this proposition. Mr. Sajjad E. Halai, Advocate has also placed reliance on the case of Mst. Saira Bai v. Syed Anisur Rahman (1989 SCMR 1366) wherein their Lordships have laid down the same principles of law. Mr. Sajjad E. Halai, Advocate has also placed reliance on an unreported case of Aziz Akbar Ali v. Fakhruddin (Civil Petition No. 234‑K of 1988), decided on 23‑1‑1990 wherein reliance has also been placed on the case of Jameela Latif v. Ghulam Yazdani Khan 1981 SCMR 637 in support of his contention that the landlord living in a rented premises can seek ejectment for personal requirement irrespective of the number of the members and size of his family. Mr. K.B. Bhutto, the learned counsel for the appellants has then submitted that the ejectment is being sought from two tenements i.e. Mezzanine floor and first floor, Mr. Sajjad E. Halai, Advocate has submitted that this is a building constructed on an area of 70 sq. yds. only which is a small area and the said two floors comprised of two small rooms of each floor. In these circumstances, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are without any force. In view of the above discussion, I maintain the orders passed by the Rent Controller and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. The appellants will hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent within two months from the date of this order. H.B.T./S‑1047/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.