1990 PLP 1510 (MLD)

Sept. and Oct. 1985 Rs.80 All these money orders which were, however, refused, Annexures A' to E' to the affidavit of Qasim (D.W.1) are self‑explanatory. Since the respondent has himself admitted about the remittance of rent by money orders, no incumbent duty lay upon the appellant to examine the postman.

7. Section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, lays down the procedure for the tender of rent when the landlord refuses to accept the same. The rent of the aforesaid period commencing from March, 1985, was thus tendered in terms of subsection (3) of section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The finding of Rent Controller on issue No.l is, therefore, set aside and the issue of default is decided in favour of appellant.

8. To prove his "good faith" in getting the premises vacated, the landlord has examined himself (P.W.1) and his son Dildar Ali (P.W.2). It is stated by the landlord/respondent that he is an employee of Karachi Port Trust and is at the verge of retirement. He is presently occupying a two rooms quarter which is not sufficient to accommodate his nine members of family, viz.

1. Yousuf Applicant 55 years

2. Rehmat Bi Wife 45 years

3. Dildar Son 23 years

4. Shireen Daughter 20 years

5. Afroze Daughter 18 years

6. Kausar Daughter 16 years

7. Shakil Son 13 years

8. Waqar Son 9 years 9.Adrian Son 7 years It is also stated by the respondent that the marriages of his sons who are of marriageable age are held up for want of accommodation. The appellant has not questioned the number of family members of respondent. It is an established position of law that while determining the question of "requirement", the Controller should not overlook the new requirements of landlord and his desire for better accommodation. The case reported as Fazal‑ur‑Rehman v. Nayeema Khatoon (P L D 1963 Dacca 84) is an important authority on this subject. At page 85, we find:‑‑ "It can hardly be disputed that the premises in question is the property of the opposite party and that as such she had got a right to use it for her purposes in accordance with law. It is not unreasonable to think that a landlord or an owner of a house may have family members or other dependants who might grow in number and might also require more accommodation from time to time. It is difficult to think that a person, though an owner of a house or otherwise capable of occupying the entire house for his or her own use and personal needs should be refused to enjoy that property in that way just for the sake of accommodating a person who might have been inducted into the premises as a tenant at a time for consideration which may not be appropriate at a later stage when such owner of the house might require the same for his or her own use and occupation."

9. Judged in the light of the above interpretation it is to be seen whether the requirement of the respondent for the disputed premises is bona fide. Admittedly the appellant is in occupation of the disputed premises since 1976. Only one room is constructed on the plot which is 161 sq.yds. in area. The respondent wants this premises to accommodate his grown up sons who may live there independently after their marriage. The respondent also wants to utilise the entire plot which is presently lying vacant. He has also in his view his retirement which is approaching fast and to meet that situation he sincerely wishes to occupy his own premises. The number of members of the family of landlord and their ages are most material factors while deciding adequacy and suitability of the accommodation already with him. The landlord may require in good faith the premises either in the existing form or after demolition and new construction for occupation like the one under consideration. The finding of Rent Controller on issue No.2 is, therefore, not open to exception.

10. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however, allowed two months time to vacate the demised premises. H.B.T./Z‑121/K Appeal dismissed.