1984 PLP 2724 (CLC)

‑‑‑S.13‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15‑‑Ejectment‑ Ground of personal requirement‑‑Premises situated at Karachi‑‑Landlord posted at Hyderabad‑ ‑Evidence not showing that he was keeping his family at Karachi either in rented premises or with relations‑‑Order of Rent Controller dismissing petition of landlord for ejectment for personal need in circumstances, held, unexceptionable.

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 2nd September,1980 passed by the learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No. 521/72, dismissing the appellant's application for ejectment, namely, on the grounds of personal requirement and non‑user of the premises. The above application was resisted by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed following 3 issues:‑ (1) "Whether the applicant requires the premises in dispute reasonably and in good faith for his personal bona fide use? (2) Whether the opponent has locked the premises for more than one year and does not use the same? (3) What should the order be? The appellant examined his brother‑in‑law attorney Afzal Rasool Khar Exh.11, whereas deceased respondent had examined himself, but before the conclusion of his examination, he had expired. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties, dismissed the above rent application. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Nooruddin Ramzan, learned counsel for the appellant has urged only the ground of personal requirement and not the aforesaid other ground. He has contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the appellant had been able to prove for the personal requirement. He has invited my attention to the statement of appellant's above attorney Afzal Rasool Khan Exh.11, who has deposed that the appellant was posted as the Accountant in the office of the Executive Board Cantonment at Hyderabad and that he had one wife, 3 children, one widow sister and two sons of his widow sister. He has further stated that the premises were required by the appellant for his personal occupation. However, at no place it has been stated by the appellant's attorney that the appellant's wife, children and his widow sister and her children were putting up in Karachi either in a rented premises or with some close relation. Since admittedly the appellant was working at Hyderabad and there was no evidence on record to prove the fact that he was keeping his family at Karachi, in my view the learned Rent Controller was justified in declining to grant the above application on the ground of personal requirement. The order seems to be in accordance with law and does not call for interference by this Court, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.B.A. Appeal dismissed.