1986 PLP 978 (CLC)

Zafar Alam Khan for Appellant. Rahmat Elahi for Respondent. Date of tearing: 18th April, 1984. The appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller and Xth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, dated 10‑1‑1983 whereby he directed the ejectment of the appellant from House No. 50, Darul Aman Co operative Housing Society, Karachi.

2. The appellant has been in possession of whole bungalow which is built on about 1,000 sq. yds. of land and his position was that he was originally in occupation of the ground floor and first was in occupation of two tenants and the two tenements on the first floor were also given to him on rent by the father of the present respondent who was the original landlord and that he has been living in this whole bungalow since 1966. The respondent had inherited this bungalow alongwith other property from his father but there was some arrangement in the bungalow by which arrangement this bungalow was give exclusively to the respondent. The same was done through an arbitration award and in pursuance of that private award, which was duly register before the Sub‑Registrar, Karachi, the respondent claims to be entitle to this bungalow. The respondent had been living in bungalow No 7/28, Delhi Mercantile Co‑operative Housing Society alongwith his brothel Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Naseem which bungalow has now bees assigned to those two brothers and those brothers have asked him t( vacate the portion in his possession and to go to his own house viz the present bungalow.

3. The Rent Controller directed the ejectment of the appellant from the whole bungalow.

4. Mr. Zafar Alam, the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that award in favour of the respondent had not been made rule of the Court and, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain and ejectment petition in his own name. I do not agree with this submission because even if the respondent had not been given this bungalow by private award still he was entitled to maintain an ejectment case against the appellant as a co‑owner of the property. More particularly so this case when his two brothers Saleem and Naseem have appeared ii this case and have supported the submissions of the respondent. Thereafter Mr. Zafar Alam contended that the Rent Controller has failed to take into consideration the question as to what was genuine and reasonable accommodation required for the respondent. He has relies upon 1982 C L C 318 where the case was remanded back by the High Court to the Rent Controller to consider as to how much premises wer4 required by the landlord in a case where there were 18/19 rooms. Hi has also relied upon 1984 C L C 324 where it was observed that Rent Controller, should decide what would be reasonable accommodation for the appellant in case there were more than one units. Mr. Zafar Alan had pointed out that there were three units in this bungalow as original rented out to the three tenants but in any case even according to sanctioned plan there were at least two fulfledged units of the ground floor and first floor and, therefore, even if the need of the landlord was established still the landlord had only a family of seven member; out of whom two namely landlord and his wife were adult while remaining were minors, and, therefore, they could be easily accommodated on the ground 'floor of the bungalow which consists of four bedrooms and other accommodation of drawing room covered verandah and kitchen etc. Mr Zafar Alam, therefore, submitted that the Rent Controller had failed apply his mind to the most crucial question in this case as to what was the exact need of the landlord.

5. Mr. Rahmat Elahi on the other hand, submitted that the need o the respondent had been clearly established and that the house at the moment was in occupation of one family and, therefore, the whole house should be given to the respondent who also has one family and hi: family consists of large number of people namely five children plus one couple while the family of the appellant consists of only four person; namely one couple and two children. Mr. Rahmat Elahi further submitted that the status of the respondent was fairly high inasmuch as he was doing a flourishing business and had paid Rs.25,000 as Income‑tax of one year's income and therefore, his need should be considered in the light of his status. Mr. Rahmat Elahi has relied upon 1970 S C M R 539 where the Supreme Court had observed that if the house is required by the landlord for his occupation then the contention of the tenant that the house is divisible into two units and, therefore, he need not be evicted from entire premises, was held to be irrelevant. He has also relied upon 1983 S C M R 402 where it was observed that a tenant cannot object if the landlord is showing extravagance in occupying a big house owned by him if personal requirement was established. Mr. Rahmat Elahi also relied upon P L D 1984 Kar. 14 where a Single Judge of this Court held that suitability or sufficiency of accommodation for landlord cannot be determined by tenant and that need for accommodation varies from one landlord to another depending upon his or her social status and that the landlord wanting to retain whole of property for his use and occupation could do so without any legal difficulty in his way and it is none of tenant's business to tell landlord to keep particular portion for his use and let out other one.

6. I am of the view that every case has to be decided and determined upon the facts of its own case and the good faith of the landlord has to be seen in respect of the accommodation sought to be required by him and the good faith would be relevant for the purposes of the actual requirement of the premises as well. Therefore, the need of the landlord in respect of exact accommodation .required by him shall have to be considered in view of the social status of the family as well as the circumstances of the case. Of course, if the landlord wants to live in a comfortable way there should be no objection to that. However, if the landlord wants to live in too luxurious style then that need shall have to be examined in detail and determined in the particular circumstances of the. case, but otherwise ejectment would trot be granted in his favour as a matter of course.

7. In the light of various authorities cited above I have tried to consider the reasonableness of demand of the respondent in this case. I am of the view, in the first instance that the bona fide need of the respondent for a separate accommodation is clearly established in the case in spite of the fact that he is living at present in two rooms with his brothers. After all the man who owns a house of his own, and has an established business, he could reasonably demand to live in his own house. In respect of actual requirement of the respondent, I find that there are only three bedrooms on the ground floor and not four bedrooms as suggested by Mr. Zafar Alam. There is a dining room on the ground floor which may have been used by client of Mr. Zafar Alam as a bedroom but at least the plan which is exhibited shows the same as dining room and I do not see as to why there should not have, been a separate dining room and drawing room on the ground floor. Therefore, the net position is that there are three bedrooms on the ground floor apart from the drawing room, dining room and store room, etc. One bedroom is obviously required for the respondent and his wife while I would consider that it would be reasonable to allow a separate bedroom for a child of 15 years of a family which is sufficiently rich, inasmuch as the respondent has paid Rs.25,000 as Income‑tax on one year's income and has claimed to be having a good status in the business community. The respondent has one child of 15 years, another child of 13 years, another child of 11 years, one child of 9 years, and another child of 3 years. They are all growing up children and the children who have now reached at adolescent stage namely children of 15 years and 13 years they could reasonably require a separate room for themselves so as to be in comfort and to study in peace. Therefore, two rooms would be required for those two children. The net result is that the three bedrooms on the ground floor would be occupied by the respondent and his two children and there would be no bedroom left on the ground floor for three other children of the respondent and, therefore, accommodation on the ground floor will not be sufficient to accommodate the entire family of the respondent. One cannot lose sight of the fact that other three children would also be growing due to passage of time and they would have to have separate accommodation eventually for themselves and in such circumstances the first floor accommodation would be required by the respondent. I cannot see any wav of dividing the accommodation on the first floor and, therefore, I am of the view that the order of Rent Controller is ultimately correct although he had not specifically taken into consideration the detailed requirements of the family of the respondent. In these circumstances this appeal is dismissed.

8. Mr. Zafar Alam made a request that the appellant may be allowed eight months time to vacate the premises, I enquired from Shamim Farooqui who is present in Court about this position and though he was reluctant in the first instance but then he and his counsel Mr. Rahmat Elahi both agreed that it may be ordered that the execution of the ejectment may be deferred till eight months subject to payment of rent by money order regularly by the appellant. It is, therefore, so ordered. It is further ordered that after eight months of this date the writ of possession will be issued directly by the Rent Controller in case the appellant has not already vacated the premises. H . B . T . Appeal dismissed.